One thing everyone can agree on
Both sides now chanting “F***” Joe Biden” pic.twitter.com/Jbt7TU1b9b
— Maven Navarro (@MavenNavarro1) May 1, 2024
Nashville should be fun today.
The bitch is I do a lot of work nearby. But they are scheduling for 5:30 pm which means any real consequences will be tomorrow if they decide to try an encampment.
Nasville being controlled by Liberals will surely do shit and the tourism industry will take a hit.
If I see anything, I will let you guys know, but the hell if you think I am going to get my ass in the middle of that clusterfuck without the proper weaponry.
PS: Of course it had to be today. It is May Day!
HAPPY FAILED COMMUNISM DAY!
Even the Good Courts Mess Up
On the 26th of April, the Fifth Circuit court issued their opinion in McRorey v. Garland. We did not win this case. This is a loss for the Second Amendment.
So what happened?
In 2022, shortly after Bruen, Congress had their Bruen tantrum. Since some rhinos decided to sell out The People, we ended up with the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022.
This is the monstrosity that is pushing every state to establish red flag infringements, as well as changing the language of who is involved in the business of selling firearms. It also adds “enhanced” background checks for adults less than 21 years of age.
The Fifth Circuit profoundly fucked up when they made this opinion.
This case presents the latest rendition of the question we face during the Bruen-Rahimi1 interregnum: What part of Bruen controls our evaluation of a firearm regulation? Its imposition of an historical showing to be made by the government? Or its various assurances that it did not disturb commonplace regulations in shall-issue regimes?
—No. 59 McRorey v. Garland, No. 23-10837, slip op. at 1–2 (5th Cir.)
—No. 59 McRorey v. Garland, No. 23-10837, slip op. at 1–2 (5th Cir.)
This is not even a difficult question:
Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Königsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U. S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961).
—New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 8 (U.S. 2022)
—New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 8 (U.S. 2022)
This is the holding. When evaluating a Second Amendment challenge, the court should first decide if the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct. If it does, the burden shifts to the government.
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
—id. n. 9
—id. n. 9
The important thing to see is that this is footnote 9. This is not a holding. This is a footnote in dicta.
In this case, it is the latter. Therefore, we affirm the denial of a preliminary injunction.
—Published Opinion – #59, Att. #1 in McRorey v. Garland (5th Cir., 23-10837), No. 23-10837, slip op. at 2
—Published Opinion – #59, Att. #1 in McRorey v. Garland (5th Cir., 23-10837), No. 23-10837, slip op. at 2
This case is still in an interlocutory state. That means it will go back to the district court for more litigating before it is appealed back to the Fifth Circuit. By that time, there will be something out of the Supreme Court regarding some Second Amendment cases currently before them.
Perhaps recognizing this, plaintiffs characterize those “dicta” as conflicting with express holdings and assert that “[d]icta cannot supplant express holdings.” That is true.
But, in rejecting plaintiffs proposed approach, we do not supplant any holding. Bruen requires an historical showing by the government “[w]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct.” 597 U.S. at 24 (emphasis added). The plain text covers plaintiffs’ right “to keep and bear arms.” U.S. Const. amend. II. And on its face “keep and bear” does not include purchase—let alone without background check. That is so in either the contemporary or the Founding-era context.
—id. at 9
The plaintiffs are correct. Dicta cannot override holdings. The holding in Bruen was absolutely clear. It starts with “we hold”.
Commentary in a footnote on dicta is less than dicta.
A concurring opinion does not change the holding. Concurring opinions are just more dicta.
Finally, —Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. V. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 75 L. Ed. 2d 295 (1983) establishes that there are indeed ancillary rights. This includes the right to purchase. Thus, the plain text of the Second Amendment does cover purchasing arms.
If you can’t purchase, you cannot own, you cannot keep arms.
Found the Antifas.
Of the over 70 people arrested at the University of Texas Austin campus on Monday at the school’s Gaza Camp, 46 of them were not students at the school.
UT Spokesperson Mike Rosen told the Austin American-Statesman that based on preliminary numbers, 46 of 77 people arrested Monday were not students, though it is unclear whether this number included faculty or staff members.
The number of protesters arrested at the pro-Palestine rally and encampment at the University of Utah is now at 19.
The school updated its tally Tuesday afternoon — from an initial report of 17 arrests — after a chaotic clash where officers in riot gear forcefully broke up the rally, charging into those gathered on campus Monday night.
Of the new total, 14 are not affiliated with the university. Four are students, and one is an employee, according to U. spokesperson Rebecca Walsh. The U. is not releasing their names.
University of Utah updates number arrested at pro-Palestine rally (sltrib.com)
TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Ten people were arrested as tear gas was deployed against protesters at the University of South Florida Tuesday afternoon after law enforcement declared an “unlawful assembly.”
It’s unclear how many of the arrests were students, but in a message to students, the university said one of the protesters was found to have a gun.
Students at the USF lined up Tuesday afternoon with umbrellas and wood shields. Video from Eagle 8 HD showed a group standing together in a circle with arms locked.
Tear gas deployed on USF protesters; 10 arrested | WFLA
Back to the old brews
Rescued mom’s espresso maker. It is a Vev Vigano 18/10 that has been in the family so long, it is classified in Ebay as “vintage ” (A.K.A. old stuff.)
I had to change the gasket, (in fact I don’t believe it was ever changed) and gave it a thorough cleaning before getting it back to brewing the Devil’s brew.
And there is a local store that has Venezuela products, including some of the good coffee we used to buy back in the day.
And Dear Lord, it does beat the flavor of percolators and Keurigs and all the other crap. The only thing better would be a very expensive Faema E61 machine. That is truly a frigging classic.
The need for hyper-violence against mid-level violence
At UCLA, pro-Hamas agitators have started preventing Jews from freely traversing campus.
@UCLA Jewish student trying to attend class is forcibly prevented entry by 6 masked Pro-Hamas students while UCLA guard stands by and DOES NOTHING.
“I am a UCLA student…my class is over there. I want to use THAT entrance. Let me go in.”#AntizionismIsAntisemitism
— The Persian Jewess (@persianjewess) April 29, 2024
Another video from UCLA where “protestors” are blocking access to the library.
“are you a Zionist?”
“Yes of course I am a Zionist”
“Well yeah, we’re not gonna let Zionists in.” pic.twitter.com/iIECxLqOxh— AG (@AGHamilton29) April 30, 2024
Again, this is an example of mid-level violence.
These Hanasniks are intimidating Jewsish students.
They are using their bodies to block Jewish students from traveling where they are legally allowed to travel.
But, if the Jewish student takes a swung at one of them, it will be the Jewish student who gets in trouble for being violent.
The law should recognize that mid-level violence is violence, and that escalation should be legally protected.
If someone blocks you from traveling where you are allowed to travel, then knocking their fucking teeth out should be a legally justified action.
The current system let’s the people who engage on mid-level violence win, and that is morally abhorrent.