Gun Free Zone

We have seen this movie before and know how’s going to end.

We banned over 1,500 types of assault-style firearms – and it’s now illegal to buy, sell, and transfer handguns in Canada.

Yet Pierre Poilievre wants to roll back our progress. Why would Conservative politicians want to put dangerous weapons back on our streets? pic.twitter.com/HM07SCDvL7

— Liberal Party (@liberal_party) October 21, 2022

And I am going to issue a prediction now: As crime rises even more in Canada, the blame will be put not in their failed anti-gun politics, but in the imaginary “iron pipeline from the United States that provides weapons to the Canadian criminals” and it will be used not as an excuse by Baby Fidel to explain his failures to curb violence, but it will be used by our Liberals to try to impose more gun control.

On Thursday 2022-10-20, federal judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. issued a TRO against the state of New York in regards to parts of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCI).

As part of the CCI NY state attempted to make so many different places within the state “sensitive places” that it would become nearly impossible for a CC holder to travel or go anyplace where they were not in violation of the law. Since the law states that violation of a sensitive place is a felony a person exercising their constitutional guaranteed right to keep and bear arms could become a prohibited person.

The courts have ruled numerous times that exercising your rights does not rise to the level of allowing the cops to have a “reasonable suspicion” that a crime is happening. I.e. the cops can’t arrest you for protesting in a public square or trespass you for filming when you enter a government building (exceptions for certain secured buildings).

In Hardaway, Jr v Nigrelli (First Deputy Superintendent NY State Police) the judge found that NY’s ban on firearms in churches (et all) is unconstitutional. He goes on to say that most of the CCI is unconstitutional but because Hardaway is only challenging the restriction in churches that is all the TRO covers.

They way this works is that the plaintiffs go to a judge and request an injunction. The court then schedules a hearing. The parties are allowed to file different pleadings. Often times the party that expects to loss will request delays. Thus it could take months or even years before the case is actually heard by the judge.

The plaintiffs can request a temporary restraining order (injunction). The TRO remains in effect until the case is heard. This can force the parties to move more rapidly to the actual hearing.

In order for the judge to grant a TRO the judge must believe that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of the case. In other words, the judge believes that the plaintiffs will win. In some cases the judge will grant parts of the request and deny other parts.

We saw this in the Antonyuk v. Hochul (Governor of the State of New York). This is the GOA case where they are suing the state of New York over the complete CCI.

Plaintiffs thus seek emergency injunctive relief, in the form of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, halting enforcement and further implementation of this patently unconstitutional statute, until a decision on the merits can be reached.

In the second case the judge issued a TRO which blocked part of the CCI but allowed other parts to remain. He then held the TRO for 3 business days to allow the state to appeal the TRO, which they did. The appellate court blocked (held) the TRO. The judge is still likely to find the CCI unconstitutional when the case is finally heard but in the meantime the CCI stays in effect.

Except for the part about banning guns in churches. Hardaway, Jr v. Nigrelli has a TRO which does block that part of the CCI.

Another win for us.
Hardaway v. Nigrelli Decision and Order
GOA: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (v CCI)

Life in prison for man who kidnapped, sexually assaulted Lubbock teen

Thomas John Boukamp, 22, was sentenced to life in prison in federal prison Thursday for cyberstalking and kidnapping a 14-year-old Lubbock girl in 2020.

The minimum sentence Boukamp faced was 15 years, and the maximum was life.

During the trial, it was revealed that Boukamp began talking to the victim – identified only as Jane Doe – when she was 13. In November 2020, he took her to his house in Michigan.

Doe testified during trial that Boukamp sexually assaulted her several times a day in Michigan and forcibly removed her braces with pliers.

The 28th Amendment needs to undo the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment for pedophiles and child molesters, and instead mandate cruel and unusual punishment for them.

Anyone who sexually assaults a girl and rips her braces off with pliers needs to spend a lot of time on the receiving end of pliers (not to mention saws and drills as well).

From California:

FRUSTRATED SF RESIDENTS ARM THEMSELVES WITH BATS, TASERS AFTER OPENING OF DRUG SOBERING CENTER
Residents say they have seen an increased presence of drug use, violence and crime on the streets since SOMA Rise opened

Some residents in one San Francisco neighborhood have resorted to arming themselves with baseball bats and tasers after the opening of the city’s first pilot drug sobering center.

Adam Mesnik lives in the SOMA neighborhood and owns a business. He calls what he’s seeing on the streets as “a period of insanity.”

He’s referring to what he and others believe is an increased presence of drug use, violence and crime on the streets since SOMA Rise opened in June.

Ghis, who provided us only with her first name, is a 31-year resident of the neighborhood and says, “More troublemakers settling in, feeling comfortable doing their drugs, pissing and sh**ting in the street blocking the sidewalks.”

Mark Sackett is a longtime business owner and resident. He estimates the increase in drug use and debauchery has cost him more than $100,000 in lost business in the 2022 calendar year.

“They’re letting their clients come out here and get high, go inside and get sober and then get high again.”

Some even resorted to arming themselves against the belligerent or violent with baseball bats and tasers.

So the city of San Francisco opens up a government sponsored drug den… because California is hell.

That attracts the criminals, violent vagrants, riffraff, and dealers.

Crime and violence skyrockets.

People fear for their safety.

They are left to arm themselves with makeshift weapons.

This is why the enforcement of Bruen is so important.

People are entitled to be able to protect themselves and to have the proper tools to do that.

But Progressives love criminals far more than the tax paying, law abiding, working man.

So they will empower the criminals and disarm the law abiding taxpayer.

The next Republican President must enforce Bruen.  And city or state government that doesn’t come up with some reasonable concealed carry provisions should be prosecuted by the DOJ for defiance of the Supreme Court.

You tell me that in this pic, Fetterman does not look like a minion of a Bond villain. And yes, the wife does look like a Bond villainess, and she is listening the dumb and corrupt government official.

We had our first contributor posting from a reader. Thank you very much!

Last week we had some positive feedback on tracking court cases as well as “more about guns!”

I have tried to add a little more humor to some of this weeks posts.

For Tuesday Tunes, do prefer the short “here, enjoy this” posts or longer “things to think about while you listen”?

For people that are sending us prompts for articles, THANK YOU. Please let us know if you want us to acknowledge your contribution and if so, how. If you are a member we would like to add your membership levels to such prompts.

Is there anything you’ve wanted us to opine about but which we have not? Or which we did to little or to deep of a dive about?