We read about the number of criminals that are being set free on a catch and release basis. This is happening in the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor looks at the person being charged and decides on what charges to bring. PoC in blue city, low charges, white cis, higher charges. The prosecutor looks at what the cops say they are charging the person with. He then decides what the actual charges will be.

Example, a white female, 85 years of age, no criminal history, walking in the people’s house taking pictures. Charged by the special investigator with unlawful entry and interfering with an official proceeding. The prosecutor, looking at the totality of the person, the person’s history, the charges brought to them by the special investigator, decides to charge her with all of the above as well as incitement. He tells the court that she is a flight risk.

Counter example, a black male, 19 years of age, two felony convictions, a long history of gang involvement, multiple charges of violence against person. The cops picked him up for stabbing a pregnant white woman, at the scene, with the bloody knife in his pocket. He has previously attempted to evade arrest when warrants were issued. Including out of state flight. The prosecutor charges him with illegal possession of a weapon recommends that he be released with no bail.

This is “prosecutorial discretion”. It means that when the suspect gets to court, the court will try him for illegal possession of a weapon. That’s it. The attempted murder will never be heard by the court.

This is not what this article is about.

This article is about what happens after the suspect is found guilty.

Read More

B.L.U.F.Brick by Brick, Row by Row, we build our freedoms.

The 9th Circuit court of Appeals got it right. What does it mean? What did the state attempt? How did the court opine?

In April 2019, another legal battle began. A long shot case that the plaintiffs knew would drag out for years if they made any progress, or they would be shutdown almost immediately.

This is from the good guys. In the original complaint, they are giving the state the presumption of the power to regulate. They also give the state the power to regulate “unusually dangerous arms”. This is not what Heller said, and we know this because the Bruen court made it absolutely clear that it is dangerous and unusual. If the arm is in common use, it is not unusual, and it cannot be banned.

This was Bruen quoting and explaining Heller

This is the equivalent of watching the puppy cower when their owner comes home. They try so hard to be good, but they fear being smacked again. Or maybe the battered spouse is a better analogy.
Read More

Today we heard a great opinion out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They found that knives are arms. As arms, they are presumptively protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Finally, they found that the government had not met their burden of finding a law from the founding that supported their modern infringement.

There is another court ruling out today. This one out of the Supreme Court.

There will be a great gnashing of teeth over this. It affects many people, it isn’t great, but it isn’t horrible either.

In late June and early July, the District court found the ATF’s frame and receiver rule to be a violation of law, NOT on Second Amendment grounds. The ruling basically said, “The ATF can’t make law, this “regulation” is them attempting to re-write the law. If Congress wants the law to be as the ATF wants it to be, Congress has to pass that bill.”

Currently, gun control bills in the Congress are fraught with risk for both sides. The gun grabbers do NOT want people looking hard at §921 and exactly what the GCA of 1968, as amended, is worded. §922 is under attack in multiple cases, having somebody challenge the rest of the GCA on constitutional grounds is not something that they want to see happen.

The state had asked the Fifth Circuit for a stay of the injunction granted by the District Court. The state was asking for a stay until the Fifth Circuit heard the case. The Fifth Circuit told them to go pound sand. The state then made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court looking for that stay.

Normally, these are quick. This took a little longer than Alito wanted.

What this means is that the frame and receiver rule is back until the Fifth Circuit renders their opinion. It looks like that could happen rapidly. The Fifth doesn’t like having their decisions overturned.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court did not rebuke the Fifth. Unlike what was done to the Second and Seventh circuits.

Now the state will drag their heels on this. The 3 judge panel will issue their findings. Regardless of how that goes, the losing party will ask for an en banc hearing. That will happen. If the Vanderstok loses, they will appeal. Their goal has always been to get this to the Supreme Court.

If the state loses, they might just tuck tail and take the L rather than get the Supreme Court involved.

So while this was a step back, I consider it an “ok” outcome. We will win in the end.

On the “Well, that’s to be expected.” Roberts came down on the side of the state. There is nothing strange about that. I just don’t trust him.

I would like to know what Amy Coney Barrett was thinking. She didn’t join with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

Weapons seizure uncovered Holyoke family’s love affair with illegally obtained firearms —Teter v. Connors, No. 1:19-cv-00183, slip op. ¶ 11 (District Court, D. Hawaii)

It is a shitty picture of some lovely old weapons. I haven’t even attempted to identify any of them.

The box of stripper clips in the foreground is nice, the pile of magazines in the sink is interesting. I would be happy to take all of those off his hands.

I’ll spare you the search, the Uzi they are referring to is a semi-auto version. There are no NFA items in the collection.

As always, the reporter is trying to induce a panic. Was this a large collection? Yes. If this was in a free state, the actual collection would not have been an issue. In MA, it is unlikely that they had registered all those firearms. Much less the magazines and ammo.

English is tricky. Were there hundreds of firearms? Were there hundreds of magazines? Were there hundreds of rounds of ammunition? Or did they just lump them all together to get scary numbers? The statement made in the court filing was that there were more than a dozen semi-automatic rifles … in one of the bathrooms …—id. ¶ 18

The state is attempting to make it sound horrible, they are attacking this man for not having all of his guns in safes.

… obsessively collected firearms to the point that they could not store them safely.—​Differences Between Facial and As-Applied Challenges to the Constitutionality of a Statute - Bona Law, (last visited Aug. 10, 2023)

I didn’t know there was a “not for money” clause in the don’t buy guns for others.

This man is going to lose his Second Amendment protected rights because the government is infringing on his father’s Second Amendment protected rights.

I didn’t find what the father was convicted of doing that made him a prohibited person. It is pretty obvious that he has not been doing evil in a long time.

I’m watching the §922(g) cases wind their way to the Supreme Court. I believe that the court is going to spank the government hard. In Heller, in the dicta, they indicated that §922(g) was presumed to be constitutional. They didn’t clarify that “presumed” means, “We didn’t look at it. That is a question for another day.”

There is no historical regulation nor tradition of stripping The People of their right to keep and bear arms because they are not virtuous people. That is what §922(g) does.

This is just an example of how there are intended consequences.

Of note, I’ve not seen a single story come across my feeds of a person being convicted of straw purchases that was a bad person.

Maybe that’s because they are either getting a sweetheart deal OR they are getting so stitched up that they didn’t stack the federal gun crime on top.

B.L.U.F. Another District Judge gets it wrong because they are another rogue judge.

The first thing we notice is that judge Rudolph Contreras uses the Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island to get his definitions. When a multiple-round device like an LCM is attached, a handgun becomes a ‘semiautomatic’ weapon, meaning that it is capable of rapidly firing several bullets, one right after another.—Teter v. Connors, No. 1:19-cv-00183, slip op. ¶ 11 (District Court, D. Hawaii) quoting the judge in Ocean State Tactical.

He also plays the language game. The law talks about “ammunition feeding devices”. He switches to “magazine” and once there talks about them as simple boxes. This is precisely the issue that the recent briefing to the Supreme Court addressed. By using the term “ammunition feeding device” throughout their brief, they make a solid case for why it is an arm and not just a box.

The good news is that the plaintiffs (good guys) did establish standing. All the plaintiffs have licenses to carry in D.C. All of them declared that but for the regulation, they would carry ammunition feed devices capable of holding more than 10 rounds. And some of them attempted to register firearms and were denied because the feed devices were “too big”.

Here we start to see the thumb on the scale On December 1, 2022, the Court permitted three nonprofit organizations, Brady, Gifford Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and March for our Lives to jointly submit an amicus brief in support of the District.—id. ¶ 12. I have yet to find a 2A case where these groups don’t have their grubby fingers in there, pounding the table and attempting emotional blackmail.

Playing Stupid

Read More

B.L.U.F.More of analysis of the horrid opinion offered by Judge Karin Immergut out in Oregon.

I’ve since learned that she spent most of her career, before becoming a district judge, working as a prosecutor for the government. She was actually a prosecutor for the ATF. OF course, she found a gun infringement constitutional.

It is pretty clear that the judge was picking and choosing experts, facts, and testimony to get the conclusion she wanted. This is clear from the following:

The EVIL gun lobby wants this, we can’t accept their testimony. How about the fact that Everytown, Brady, and a dozen other groups all pile on when there is a Second Amendment Case? Should their testimony be discounted because they have been a plaintiff in several Second Amendment challenges? Maybe the judge should disallow Paul Clement from representing Second Amendment plaintiffs because he’s been involved with several Second Amendment challenges?

Does she really think that all these anti-gun people don’t make money from litigating? I’ve looked at some of the tax filings for some of these groups, they seem to spend significant amounts of money on the administrative and executive salaries.

What is she talking about? That most people don’t buy extra magazines for their firearms? Technically, I guess that is true. My M1 Garand came with zero enblocs. I think I have over 50 of them now. All but a few loaded. My PC-9 came with one magazine. I’ve never even loaded it. I purchased 6 Glock magazines to feed it, and then purchased a Glock with a couple of magazines.

My first AR-15 came with two magazines. One was 5 rounds and the other 10. None of the other AR-15s came with magazines. I don’t know how many magazines I currently have. I still have one 5 round mag, and one 10 round magazine. I do have a few 20 round mags, but most of my magazines are 30 rounds.

It does not matter why The People decide to purchase extra magazines or if they just use the magazine(s) that come with their guns. They have decided that ammunition feeding devices with more than 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, or 15 rounds is what they want, those purchases are protected under the Second Amendment.

The judge is incorrect in how she categorizes these anecdotal incidents. They are examples of people using their arms to actively defend themselves. They were using those arms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense, by possessing them. They prove The People chose these arms in common use today for lawful purposes.

Conclusion

I’m now behind the curve, here are a couple of YouTube videos that go into just how bad this opinion is.

I might come back to this, but with multiple issues with the k8s cluster resulting in a full day of ClusterFuck and then another 30 minutes of minor CF today. I have not had time to do any more wading through this swamp.

B.L.U.F. An analysis of the horrible opinion out of Oregon where the district Judge decided that arms aren’t covered under the Second Amendment and that there is a history and tradition of requiring government approval before you can exercise your Second Amendment protected rights.

This opinion is 122 pages long. This is not a complete analysis. I don’t think I can stomach that much muck.

Inserted a title and added a “more” block to take the text-wall off the front page

When I originally looked at Judge Karin Immergut, I was hoping for better from her. She was appointed by President Trump. Unfortunately, it appears that her time in liberal cesspools has corrupted her judgement. She has degrees from the University of California, Berkeley, Amherst College, and UC Berkeley School of Law. To say that she was educated in leftest incubator schools is a fair statement.

The Question

This is a horrible statement of the actual questions in the case. 1) Is banning ammunition feeding devices based on characteristics in violation of the Second Amendment protected rights? 2) Is requiring a member of The People to get state approval before they are allowed to purchase constitutional?

Even with her horrid wording, she should not have been able to find that BM114 is constitutional.

Holding

I’ll use the words of Paul Clement et al.:

She even messes up Supreme Court dicta This Court also finds that the text of Oregon’s permit-to-purchase framework is consistent with the type of regulation that the United States Supreme Court has deemed constitutional under the Second Amendment—id. ¶ 18. The Supreme Court never said that any permitting scheme is constitutional, only that shall issue states are assumed to be constitutional.

The court then went forth and said, “If you get a 2A case, look to the plain text, history and tradition to make your ruling. That means …”

We should not have been surprised because she granted Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety’s motion to intervene based on Federal Rule 24 of Civil Procedures, 24(b).

I believe that she is referring to 24(b)1(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety is an anti-gun group that uses emotional blackmail constantly.
Read More