Why are they arguing outside of Bruen

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

Spread the love

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.

Spread the love

Rupp v. Bonta — Part 3 – UPDATED

This article has being revised. You can read the revision Rupp v. Bonta — Part 3 – Revised. I got Duncan v. Bonta mixed up with Rupp v. Bonta and wrote about magazine bans in this case when in fact this case is about semi-auto rifle bans.

My confusion was increased because sometimes the experts are talking about “assault weapons” and sometimes about number of rounds and it all just got me mixed up.

In addition, I managed to make more than my normal number of wrong and/or missing words plus it looks like my copy and paste lost the first character in some of the quotes.

My apology. The only changes to this article are within this section.

B.L.U.F. Final article analyzing the Rupp v. Bonta case currently before Judge Josephine L. Staton, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. If this case is appealed, it will go up to the Ninth Circuit court, again.


Status of Case

This case was opened, argued in district court, the district court found for the defendants under intermediate scrutiny, the case was then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. While at the Ninth Circuit the Supreme Court agreed to hear Bruen at which point the plaintiffs(good guys) and defendants(bad guys, state) asked for the case to be held pending Bruen. After Bruen the Ninth Circuit Court vacated and remanded the case back to the district court, where it is now proceeding.

The case is expected to be heard some time after 2023-05-26. This is not set in stone. The date might move due to other reasons or either party might coincide.

The state is going to have to run a series calculus on whether to appeal this case. If the district court rules for the plaintiffs then the magazine ban for the state of California is over, as currently written into law, but the case would have no real weight outside of this case.

The state could then pass a different magazine ban and that ban would have to be challenged. This could go on for an extend period of time. As those cases were heard in district courts, those courts that were anti-gun would cite back to this case and then rule the same way.

If the state thinks the Ninth Circuit will rule for them, they know that the plaintiffs will appeal to the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court grants cert. they will lose and all magazine bans around the country are gone. If the Supreme Court does not grant cert. then the magazine ban will stay in place and will apply to 15 different districts across 11 different states and territories.

Read More

Spread the love

The hubris of money fondling Blue bubbles

This article from The Hill says it all about the perspective of the Left.

What if Marjorie Taylor Greene’s secessionist fantasy came true?

After denouncing “Democrats’ traitorous America Last policies” and their “sick and disgusting woke culture,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) declared, “We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Everyone I talk to says this.” Asked if her plan was realistic, Greene replied, “It’s something we should work towards because it’s kind of the vision that our founding fathers had for America, and I think it’s great.”

It seems appropriate, then, to consider some implications of Greene’s secessionist fantasy.

But if, somehow, the red and blue states manage to separate, the new normal, as with virtually all divorces, would have substantial economic ramifications. Domestic and international trade relations would be disrupted, treaties would have to be renegotiated, federal assets (including the gold at Fort Knox and military bases at home and abroad), would have to be parceled out, the national debt would have to be paid off.

Talk is cheap, but secession would be expensive for the large number of red states that are indirectly subsidized by blue states. These days, eight of the ten states most dependent on appropriations from the federal government almost always vote Republican. Ironically, many voters in those states believe their tax dollars are supporting Latinos and Blacks.

West Virginia gets 2.36 times more money from Washington D.C. than its residents pay in federal income taxes. Over 4 percent of the workers in the state are employed by the U.S. government, the seventh highest percentage in the country. They earn, on average, nearly double what employees in the state’s private, for-profit companies are paid. For every dollar Mississippi residents pay in federal income taxes, the state receives $2.53 from the government Marjorie Taylor Greene loves to hate. The state of Wyoming gets 56.4 percent of its revenues from the federal government, the highest percentage in the United States. The annual income of federal workers who reside in Alabama ($67,948) is more than double the average income of private, for-profit workers ($33,242).

By contrast, seven of the ten states least dependent on appropriations from the on the federal government almost always vote Democratic.

First of all, there are no Blue states.

There are Blue urban centers, and sometimes the population of those urban centers is the majority population of the state.

I lived in Illinois.  There are 101 counties in Illinois and 97 of them are consistently Red.

The ones that aren’t are Chicago, the wealthier Chicago suburbs, and Springfield.  That is 53% of the population of the state.

Upstate New York and the Central Valley of California are other examples of blood Red areas dwarfed in population by deep Blue coastal megaopolises they share a state with.

Any divorce will happen at the county level, not the state level.

The Central Valley won’t side with LA and San Francisco if shit goes south.

But what do these urban areas have that the Left thinks gives them power?

Money.

They are centers of finance.

The banking sector, Wall Street, Silicon Vallet, Hollywood, etc.

The thing is, they produced nothing but money.

Silicon Valley may produce software and websites, but they long ago gave up manufacturing hardware.

These Blue areas lack any and all agricultural, manufacturing, mining, refining, or other capabilities.

“Alabama will become destitute without government funding from DC paid for by Blue states.”

That shows that all they have is the power of the purse.

They have the monet but they are dependent on Red areas for everything else.

If the Left wants to know why the Right wants a national divorce so badly, this is why.

Watching 100 million concrete jungle residents run out of food and oil in a matter of days after they get embargoed by Red states is a lesson in hubris they desperately need.

 

 

 

Spread the love

Tuesday Tunes

Last week, as I was digging through the filings in Rupp v. Bonta this song popped up in my music queue. I think I had heard it way back when, but certainly nothing more recent than a decade or two.

There is one thing I have learned about lawyers in my many years, my lawyers have all been good people, their lawyers have all been assholes.

My lawyer wayback when hired a new secretary. When I came into see my lawyer she recognized me. She use to work at a different lawyer’s firm. That firm had represented my wife during our divorce. I had a terrible hatred for that dude because of the way he helped my wife get one over on me.

Anyway this secretary, when she recognized me, told me that she remembered me from coming into her office. How she had appreciated how I had treated her and the rest of the staff. Then she shocked me by telling me that my ex-wife’s lawyer liked me better than he liked his client and thought I had done a good job of representing myself in the end.

Lawyers are like the pitbulls that J.Kb. talks about. They are vicious and nasty and evil, but when they are protecting you, that is exactly what you want. You just have to be careful they don’t get off their leash.

Lawyer Jokes in bad taste

Q: What do you call 25 attorneys buried up to their chins in cement?
A: Not enough cement.

Q: What do you call 25 skydiving lawyers?
A: Skeet.

Q: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.

Q: Why did New Jersey get all the toxic waste and California all the lawyers?
A: New Jersey got to pick first.

Q: What do you call 5000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start!

The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.Henry VII, William Shakespeare

Spread the love

Who Wins?


B.L.U.F. – This is a subject that I think we could achieve a middle ground for, if the loudest and most extreme could just be removed from the equation. As it is, we’re going to end up even more polarized than ever. I apologize in advance for the VERY LONG and rambling nature of this missive. It’s hard to write, and I’m doing my best.

***

Abortion is a terribly touchy subject. I hate talking about it, because I really don’t have any interest in fighting over it. However, it’s a topic which I almost definitely have a “more left” stance on than anyone else on GFZ, so I will share.

First and foremost, Roe Vs. Wade was a terribly written law that should not have stood as long as it did, if at all. That it was overturned was inevitable. That doesn’t bother me. The idea of States being able to ban abortion entirely does bother me, but not too much so long as interstate travel for medical care is still allowed.

I would love to live in a world that didn’t require abortions. However, I live in a world that has rape, incest, accidents, and medical problems. I don’t foresee a change in that anytime soon, no matter how much I hope. That means that I can never be 100% against abortion. As long as there’s a chance that a living, breathing, adult (in body if not in mind) woman could be harmed by carrying a child to term, I have to support at least some cases of abortion.

I got pregnant when I was 19. It was most definitely an accident. I was on the Pill, and he was wearing a condom, and we both screwed up somehow. At the time, in my very misspent youth, I was actively drinking and using drugs frequently, and I was not eating well. I was malnourished, stressed, and in physical/medical distress. I won’t even go into my mental health at the time; suffice to say it was dismal. I found out at 5 weeks. I agonized over the decision, because I had suffered several miscarriages (likely a good thing, I say now as an adult with a large number of years under her belt… at the time it was devastating). I had to be honest, though, that any child I had at that moment would have been undernourished, likely exposed to a large number of chemicals (before I found out), and would have lived in extreme poverty. I chose to abort the child. By the time I managed to get in for an appointment, I was just shy of 12 weeks along (remember that for later in this discussion). That was over 30 years ago. I still mourn that child.
Read More

Spread the love

Miguel’s AMA

it’s just Boris: Rifle cases, hard or soft, and why?

Holy crap, nice one. As usual, the answer depends on “tactics,” need and budget.  I don’t travel much with rifles, and whatever travel is to and forth range or buddy’s place not too far so the predilection is soft.

For my 10/22s I have a couple of cheap Walmart cases that have great padding.  I have some old weird “tactical” case for the AK which allows for a red dot (some wont, I found the hard way.) And for traveling and staying overnight at hotels, I have come to enjoy the NC Star Discreet Carbine Case because it does not give the “Tactical” vibe and I can carry an AR15 or my Ruger PC9 and enough mags. In fact, I need another one.

PS: The green nail polish is cheap paint enhancement for front sights. Get the one with sparkly stuff. Yes, I strapped the rifle like crap, but it was for this post.


Jay Bee: Having now lived here for a large chunk of your life, do you consider where you grew up to still be “Back home?” If not, did you have a specific “This is home” moment while here in the states?

First question: No. I don’t know how quite to explain it, but it is like I belonged/ did not belong, but I did not know it till I came to the US in the 80s to go to college and went back. Then I saw the Chavez shitstorm about to happen, discussed with the missus about leaving before shit the fan. We agreed and I actually said without thinking “OK, let’s go home.”


AWA: The first time you got to the United States, what struck you as “I didn’t expect that” or “That isn’t what I was told it was going to be”

This is a good one. Remember what 99% of the World knows about the US comes from Hollywood, so imagine the shitload of misconceptions. Again referring to the time I came to College here in Tennessee which was not a tourist trip: Politeness, cleanliness and organization. And the sometimes, the overwhelming abundance of stuff we never saw back home.
This clip from Moscow in the Hudson? I laughed when I saw it. It was not Soviet Russia in Venezuela (yet) but it was kinda true.


CBMTTek: Belt and suspenders.  

Belt only. I tried suspenders, but they do a number to my injured back. Plus, you can’t get a decent holster for a suspender.


msdryley:I currently live in Connecticut. I first visited Tennessee 15 years ago. I absolutely loved the Pigeon Forge/Gatlinburg/ Great Smoky Mountains area and have often thought of moving to that state. I have started online realty searches and I have a few questions for your consideration : Is their a reason that the majority of houses do not have basements? 

You know the song Rocky Top? Well, the bottom is also rocky. In fact, you will find rock close to the surface like water in South Florida grounds. It is not unusual to have a demo to build a septic tank.

I have noted that the large land parcels typically have a house built close to the road and boast city water hook up. Is there a water quality problem or some other issue that makes city water more desirable than a well?

This is what I have seen: Wells might be unreliable. Water tables shift may shift and your well goes dry. It is one thing to dig a well on dirt and another more expensive to do through rock.

3 counties you would consider least desirable

Davidson (Nashville), Knox (Knoxville), Shelby (Memphis) and some add Hamilton (Chattanooga) to that mix.

I can’t say which are the three top good counties.


 

Spread the love