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:

Plaintiffs offered the chart as an industry report through the testimony of Salam Fatohi, who serves as the Director of Research at the National Shooting Sports Foundation (“NSSF”). Tr. 6/6/2023 356:4–5. Although this Court received the chart in evidence, see Ex. 33 at 7, in assessing the weight and credibility to give Mr. Fatohi’s testimony, this Court notes that the NSSF is a plaintiff in this case and has been a plaintiff in several Second Amendment challenges to firearms regulations. The NSSF is a firearm and industry trade association which advocates for the firearm and ammunition industry. NSSF members have a significant financial interest in the outcome of this case.
Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown, No. 2:22-cv-01815, slip op., n. 18 (D. Or. Jul. 14, 2023)

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.

Nevertheless, based on the parties’ pretrial stipulation, this Court finds that millions of Americans today own LCMs. But this Court also finds that the number of LCMs possessed by Americans is influenced to some degree by whether a firearms manufacturer sells a particular model of firearm standard with an LCM, and whether that firearm is sold standard with more than one LCM. Tr. 6/5/2023 44:16–19; 67:6–17.
id. at 25

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.

Plaintiffs offered only limited anecdotal evidence of LCMs actually being used in self-defense. Mr. Ayoob described an incident in which a law enforcement officer fired thirty-three rounds in pursuit of an armed bank robber. Tr. 5/30/2023 39:24–40:16. On cross-examination, Mr. Ayoob also testified about an incident in which two individuals fired nine and three rounds, respectively, at an armed intruder. Tr. 5/30/2023 56:16–57:14. On re-direct, Mr. Ayoob testified to two other incidents with civilians firing more than ten rounds in self-defense: two brothers who owned a jewelry store and fired between thirty and forty rounds to stop an attempted robbery, and one gun shop owner who used an M16-rifle and a sub-machine gun to stop an attempted robbery. Tr. 5/30/2023 95:15–96:13.
id. at 26

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.


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.

Spread the love

By awa

2 thoughts on “O.F.F. v. Brown, Judges Opinion Pt. 2”
  1. no sweat on not getting through that pile of $***. Don’t worry, the best use of that ruling is as toilet paper if you run out. It’s pure biased crap. I didn’t know this Karen was an ATF stooge… that was new info and I thank you for it… it explains a lot about her ruling. 9th Circus, here we come!

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.