It was a big week at the Supreme Court. The Court heard its second Second Amendment case in a year. The odds say we should get the opinion sometime around June 2024.
The left is going on about how this will be a slam dunk win for the state and gun infringers everywhere. MSNBC went so far as to say that the conservative court was retreating from Bruen because Bruen was so untenable.
There is very little chance that Bruen will be reversed. Bruen was a slap down of the inferior courts for not doing Heller correctly. What is possible is that we get an opinion that says that a person who is dangerous to himself or others can be disarmed. If that happens, I expect that the court will also specify precisely how a person is judged to be “dangerous”.
Furthermore, the Court may find that there is no history of disarming a person without due process and vacates §922(g)(8).
Of course, the Court could just vacate the Fifth Circuit court’s opinion and remand it with instructions on how to do it “right”.
Regardless, I’m not concerned about the outcome of this case. It will either be a win for The People or an extremely limited opinion. Meanwhile, the state has admitted that the criteria is “dangerous” which might mean that §922(g) gets gutted when the Range case is heard.
I recently picked up a WWII IFAK pouch to go with my WWII web gear for pistol carry. It is barely big enough for an Israeli Combat Bandage or a SWAT-T tourniquet. I’m trying to decide which is the better to have with me all the time.
I’m leaning towards the Israeli Combat Bandage.
On an interesting note, I’ve complained to Hagar that she gets much better engagement on her articles than I do on mine. I spend 3 or 4 hours writing an analysis of a case, and I’m lucky if I get 2 comments. She whips off an article in 30 minutes and has 10+ comments.
She pointed out that my non-legal articles get more feedback.
Yesterday’s rant about some moron thinking he had discovered “The Loophole” had good feedback. It felt nice.
I hope you all have a wonderful weekend.
We look forward to your comments.
It’s not that I don’t appreciate the legal posts. It’s just that I don’t have much to say on them.
Awa, addressing your legal articles, seemingly low engagement rate. Don’t trust “Likes” this feature in no way reflects the true level of engagement of your expertly written, thoroughly researched content. And responses, well, myself, 90% of the time, my response is that of a student listening to the professor deliver irrefutable, factual content, which the only appropriate response would be, “Ok, thank you, see you next class.” I am willing to bet that everyone who gets your content in their email, reads it without clicking the Like button.
.
Lately I’ve not had the time to do anything but “Like” your legal articles. Hagar does “Op-eds” on current political issues. For instance, when you posted an opinion on a legal issue, which you thought you should apologize for, you had more responses, all of which approved of your opinion and voiced there was no need to apologize.
.
If you ‘Unleash the Beast Within” you know, like Hagar does, you’ll see a significant change. But again, I believe everyone reads your legal content. It’s like reading a dictionary, more people need to do it, the world would be a better place, but when you get done reading the dictionary to the class, don’t expect a lot of reaction. lol. Trust me, the membership here are all smarter than we used to be due to your “legal stuff”.
This is what Hagar told me. That when I do a long legal article, most people aren’t going to say anything. “Thank you, for the lecture?” I don’t remember saying that to my professors back at University.
.
At the same time, I put a great deal of effort into them, so they can’t be easily refuted. Is somebody really going to argue in the comments that it I got it wrong? Not really. They might point me at something, and away I go, to learn more.
.
The issue for me is totally internal. I’m driven by wanting to do it right. Long term, that positive feedback keeps me doing a task I’ve learned.
OK then, what did you say to your professors? I put that part of my comment in quotes, but it was meant to be more of a thought, which I had but never actually voiced. Every writer writes to engage the reader and must believe it occurs regardless of any confirmation. Likes, comments, and sales are just a bonus which could occur along the way. You know you’re good, or you wouldn’t do what you do Awa. I know you’re good which is why I read what you do. I’m just a ‘wee bit’ smarter for it ;).
Blunt answer here. I suffer from depression. I take meds for it. One of the things that helps is learning. My love of learning is immense. Unfortunately, that does extend to continuous effort.
.
I know how to do blacksmithing, yet I’ve not done it in 30 years. I know how to spin wool into yarn. I know how to knit, crochet, warp a loom and weave.
.
When somebody in the family starts to learn a new skill, I try to keep my mouth shut, until they come to ask me for assistance. At which point I tell them what I learned years ago.
.
The issue is that I don’t keep up with it. I learn it, my family says I “mastered” it. Then I move on to the next thing to learn about.
.
The feedback I get gives me the incentive to keep going forward. This posting wasn’t intended as a whine looking for back patting. Hagar has already explained to me why I get engagement on rants and opinion pieces, but not on my “scholarly” articles.
.
Thank you, personally, for being a constant commentor, incentivizing me to do more.
Looking forward to reading your latest post Awa. I will sit down with some high-octane coffee and a fine cigar and have you feed my mind with factual reliable content, because I too need to learn new things constantly or life becomes useless…..to me. Knowledge is our drug.
What those guys up there said.
.
Comparing your legal articles to Hagar’s articles is like comparing, oh, a fine wine to a good blue cheese. Both work well in the same venue, both are highly worthwhile, but the one tends to invite quiet contemplation while the other is more likely to elicit a comment of yay or nay. 🙂
As “Lawful” says, most of us read the legal stuff. I usually don’t have anything to add as your post is packed full. I do sometimes find them a bit painful, but thats my knuckle dragging mind. Unfortunately the court side of the 2A is a fight we must continue. Yall have a great page to keep us informed
your long legal articles, are doing god’s work, and are valued.
I completely read your posts. As I lack specific knowledge to agree/disagree with them and to save from embarrassing myself, I decline to comment. Silence is not violence, in my case it is prudence. Your posts are appreciated.
Bruen WILL be reversed. Count on it. Once Justice Thomas dies (or is murdered) he will be replaced by the left with a compliant commie leftist. The rest of the “conservative” justices will shut up and go along with the violent leftists and they will overturn EVERY ruling that aids the 2nd Amendment including both Bruen and Heller. MARK MY WORDS. It will happen. The left now OWNS the White House in perpetuity and justices are nominated by the POTUS. It’s one of the main reasons the left created and maintains the most pervasive election fraud machinery in history. Control of the SCOTUS was a major motivator. And with the replacement of Justice Thomas the left will control the Court. Thomas is the only Justice with the balls to stand up to the left.
I know the leftist want exactly what you assert, no doubt about it. But I say they’ll achieve their objective without bothering to overturn any of the rulings by simply ignoring Bruen, Heller, and any ruling favoring the second amendment. They’re already doing this in NY and all the other leftist dominated states will follow suit.
.
I do also believe you’re correct about Thomas suffering a similar fate of Scalia. And you’re absolutely correct on the election fraud machine. There is no way any anti-leftist will win another presidential election. The White House is Obama’s until he passes it on to his replacement. I’m betting they’ll be middle eastern–An Iranian, Valerie Jarrett has already been the DeFacto president over Obama, so perhaps it will formally be her 2028.
.
I lost track of what happened in the SCOTUS conservative members homes being targeted by protestors. I remember this administration did not provide protection for them, instead they had to stay somewhere else until the protestors got tired and left. Not sure if what I remember is what actually happened.
Despite reading a LOT of biographies, documentaries, and books of fiction, and commenting/reviewing many of them, I don’t remember EVER commenting or reviewing a single textbook. Not one. I suppose that accounts for the fact that when it comes to your legal texts I have commented on only a few. Hell, maybe only a couple. Dunno.
But I DO know that I read almost all of your posts because they are instructive. I learn not only the current topic of focus, but also the process., And good grief, learning a process that seems to be invented and nurtured to purposely defy understandig by non-club-members, well, there is great value in that.
Here’s the meat of it I think: Because most comments are of the agree, disagree, or expand the point(s), I find it difficult to comment on instructive text. But make no mistake, I’m reading. And learning.