All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

Firearms Policy & Law Analyst at The Zelman Partisans Personal Blog: https://www.bussjaeger.us/blog/

I Respectfully Disagree

January 20, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 7 Comments

I like Aesop’s, of the Raconteur Report, style; most of the time. I often like what he has to say. But in the matter of Alec Baldwin’s negligent killing of Halyna Hutchins, I must respectfully disagree.

“According to industry wide safety regulations, whose sole and entire JOB is it, on production sets, going back to before anyone of the RUST set was born, to handle, load, supervise, and ensure the total safety and inability of prop weapons to cause death or injury to result on set from the use of any such prop weapon, barring a blatant violation of the safety rules?”

Yes, the armorer is hired for that — supposed — expertise. That’s why almost-armorer Gutierrez-Reed is also facing a manslaughter charge. But…

Screw “industry wide safety safety regulations.” Try basic firearms handling safety rules, upon which those regs should be based.

ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET (and what is beyond it, like your director)

Observe that none of those rules is prefaced with “Expect someone else to make sure that…” In the end, the final responsibility rests with the person holding the gun: Baldwin. Those rules aren’t all that hard. I have known six year-old children who successfully learned and faithfully followed them.

Of course, Baldwin’s defense uses Aesop’s argument. His lawyer said:

“Mr. Baldwin had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun — or anywhere on the movie set. He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds. We will fight these charges, and we will win.”

When I’m cleaning a firearm, I have “no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun,” but I still check.

Imagine for a moment that this was not a firearm-related death. Instead, pretend that Baldwin was framing that shot in preparation for a scene in which he drives a car. Note: not filming an action scene; framing in preparation for a scene to be filmed later.

Hall hands Baldwin the keys and says, “Cold car.”

Baldwin, for some reason not called for in framing, starts the car and puts it in gear. (cocks the hammer, past half cock to full cock)

Baldwin turns the steering wheel towards Hutchins. (points the gun)

Baldwin hits the accelerator and runs down two people, killing one. (pulls the trigger)

Baldwin then exclaims that it’s not his fault because no one told him there was gas in the car.

And for fun, imagine he did this after after years of pontificating about “car safety.” (“gun safety,” gun control)

That last point isn’t even about karma, comeuppence, or irony. It’s a legal point; one I’d raise in court if I were the prosecutor: Over the course of years, Baldwin has presented himself as sufficiently knowledgeable about firearms, safety, and law to lecture me about how to handle my own firearms. Yet now he claims innocence due to an abysmal lack of knowledge and common sense regarding those very things; a lack so great that he needs an entire crew to protect himself — and everyone around him — from his own imbecilic ignorance.

One more time; if I were the prosecutor, I’d present clips from interviews, and social media post of Baldwin telling everyone else how to do it right, and ask him, “Mr. Baldwin, for years you’ve claimed you know better on firearm safety than everyone else. Why are you now claiming to be dumber than a six year-old in need of constant adult supervision?”

Sorry, Aesop. I do see your point. But based on Baldwin’s interviews and disclaimers, police reports, and forensic reports, I have to disagree with you on this one.

Baldwin is responsible for what he did. Not solely, but responsible.

Added: Even if Baldwin is that lethally irresponsible and foolish, another fact remains: He was also a producer for this film, meaning he was one of the people responsible for hiring competent personnel to protect everyone from his own stupidity.

Added, 2: Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies:

“It is incumbent on anybody that holds a gun to make sure that it is either not loaded or to know what it is loaded with,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press. “And certainly then to not point it at someone and pull the trigger. That’s where his actor liability, we think, comes in.”

She also emphasized that while Baldwin is to be charged as the man with the gun in his hand, his role as a producer, and at least partial responsibility for the lax conditions that led to his having a loaded gun, were a consideration in deciding to bring the charges.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)

authoritarian swine, Courts, gun control, gun grabbers, Law, Rights

There’s One Group Of Gov Types Without Sovereign Immunity

January 19, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

This is a day for good news.

Florida has a state preemption statute: firearms regulation is the provenance of the state, not lower level local jurisdictions. Even better, Florida law includes significant civil penalties for hopped up local politicians that try passing their own little gun control laws in their little ponds.

Naturally, they don’t like that. What? Hold us responsible for breaking the law? We have sovereign immunity!

Today, the Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the wanna-be lawbreakers.

The imposition of these civil statutory actions for violations of the Preemption Statute does not violate governmental function immunity. It is not a core municipal function to occupy an area that the Legislature has preempted, and local governments have no lawful discretion or authority to enact ordinances that violate state preemption. See Fla. Power Corp., 579 So. 2d at 107 (“While the authority given to cities and counties in Florida is broad, both the constitution and statutes recognize that cities and counties have no authority to act in areas that the legislature has preempted.”).

Accordingly, we conclude that the First District did not err in concluding that governmental function immunity does not prohibit the statutory actions in section 790.33(3)(f).

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, we conclude that neither legislative immunity nor governmental function immunity prohibit the statutory actions and penalties in section 790.33(3)(c), (d), and (f). Accordingly, we approve the First District’s decision in City of Weston.

Anyone stupid enough to try passing local gun control laws in Florida now definitively faces fines up to $5,000, and damages up to $100,000.

Best of all:

public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.

Violators are out of personal pocket for those bucks. Not the taxpayers, not the city’s insurance company.

Courts, Law, Violence-Enabling Victim Disarmers

Baldwin To Be Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter

January 19, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 1 Comment

It took more than a year, but killer Alec Baldwin is finally facing an appropriate charge.

News release from DA Mary Carmack-Altwies on charges against Alec Baldwin, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed
“Rust” actor and producer Alec Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed will each be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Halyna Hutchins on the film’s Santa Fe County set in 2021.

Assistant director David Halls has signed a plea agreement for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon. The terms include a suspended sentence and six months of probation. A copy of the plea agreement will be available after it has been filed with the court.

As I’ve explained before, involuntary manslaughter — a felony — appears to be the most appropriate charge for Baldwin. I don’t think he had any intent (required for a murder charge) to kill Hutchins, but he willfully broke every firearms safety rule there is.

Given Gutierrez-Reed’s actions and inactions, involuntary manslaughter also sounds right. Based on police reports, I think they could also nail her on tampering with evidence, but it doesn’t appear she’s been charged with that.

In fact, Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed are facing two, alternate charges. And that worries me just a bit.

The first charge can be referred to simply as involuntary manslaughter. For this charge to be proved there must be underlying negligence. Under New Mexico law, involuntary manslaughter is a fourth-degree felony and is punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine. This charge also includes the misdemeanor charge of negligent use of a firearm, which would likely merge as a matter of law.

The other charge is involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act. This charge requires proof that there was more than simple negligence involved in a death. This is also a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in jail and up to a $5000 fine.

With the misdemeanor “negligent use” charge included, this might give Baldwin some room to plea bargain. I hope, for the sake of justice, that this doesn’t happen.

Halls’ misdemeanor negligent use charge is about right for him. He seemingly “merely” handed Baldwin a loaded weapon without checking it. Stupid; but he wasn’t primarily responsible for the status of the firearm (that would start with the idiot armorer), and he wasn’t the lethal lunatic who pulled the ttrigger: Baldwin himself.

I know many people would like to see Baldwin face a more serious murder charge, seeing how often he’s run off at the mouth about guns and other people; but involuntary manslaughter, as defined in New Mexico law, best fits the circumstances and more much more easily proved in court than murder.

Barring a generous plea deal for a Hollywood name, this — and the civil suits — is the best shot at something resembling justice.

authoritarian swine, gun grabbers, Law

Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban

January 17, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

Always read the fine print. I saw a report on a bill filed in Massachusetts, HD 353.

MA may now ban all semi-auto rifles and shotguns
Virtually all semi-automatic firearms would be banned under a proposed Massachusetts law expanding the reach of its existing “assault weapons” ban.
[…]
The bill replaces the state’s lengthy definition of “assault weapon” with the phrase “any rifle or shotgun containing a semiautomatic mechanism.” Handguns are not mentioned in the bill.

Yes, and no. The bill does change some definitions in current law, specifically “Large capacity weapon”, any firearm, rifle or shotgun.” That would include assorted characteristics involving capacities and magazines.

“Large capacity weapon”, any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device; (iii) that employs a rotating cylinder capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition in a rifle or firearm and more than five shotgun shells in the case of a shotgun or firearm; or (iv) any rifle or shotgun containing a semiautomatic mechanism. The term “large capacity weapon” shall be a secondary designation and shall apply to a weapon in addition to its primary designation as a firearm, rifle or shotgun

MA Gen L ch 140 § 121, which the bill in question is modifying, already defines “firearm” as “a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged.”

So while HD 353 doesn’t use the words “handgun” or “pistol,” it does include “firearm,” which does include them.

With this bill any fixed mag or revolving pistol holding more than 10 rounds would be banned. And any detachable magazine autoloader would be banned because if it takes a detachable mag, it’s “capable” of taking a large capacity mag.

Between state permits to purchase and transfer registration, all those would-be banned autoloading pistols are effectively registered. So the cops will know whose doors to knock on down.

As for semiauto rifles and and shotguns…

(iv) any rifle or shotgun containing a semiautomatic mechanism.

And reinforced in…

SECTION 4. Section 123 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out the words “assault weapon”, in lines 146 and 147, and inserting in place thereof the following words:- any rifle or shotgun containing a semiautomatic mechanism.

This would effectively ban virtually all semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns currently lawfully possessed in Massachusetts. But, as always, those unlawfully possessed by bad guys?

Not so much. Theirs probably aren’t registered.

Nor would this ban on evil, nasty weapons of mass death apply to cops.

Odd, that.

Constitution, Courts, gun control, Law, SCOTUS

SCOTUS Needs To Get Its Priorities In Order

January 17, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger

No doubt regular TZP readers heard about the recent Supreme Court lack of a decision in ANTONYUK v. STEVEN NIGRELLI. For those who haven’t: Plaintiffs filed suit challenging New York’s recent, post-Bruen, weapons carry law, notably declaring a wide assortment of sensitive places where the state claims it can ban firearms.

The district court issed an injunction against enforcement of the ban pending full trial on the matter. The state appealed to the Second Circuit, which — for no particular reason — stayed the injunction.

Plaintiffs appealed to SCOTUS asking the Court to lift the stay. SCOTUS declined to do so.

When I heard about the SCOTUS lack of action, it was reported merely as an unexplained denial; that’s fairly normal, so I didn’t think too much about it.

Until Monday, when I finally saw an article that mentioned that Justice Alito, with Thomas concurring, had actually issued a statement in conjunction with the denial. The meat of the matter is this:

The District Court found, in a thorough opinion, that the applicants were likely to succeed on a number of their claims, and it issued a preliminary injunction as to twelve provisions of the challenged law. With one exception, the Second Circuit issued a stay of the in- junction in full, and in doing so did not provide any explanation for its ruling.
[…]
I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.

If those few lines are TL;DR you, it amounts to, Rather than prioritizing the protection of constitutionally-protected First and Second Amendment rights of the people, SCOTUS thinks the Second Circuit’s procedures are far more important.

Even when the Second doesn’t seem to be following its own usual procedure.

Bureaucratic process — or the lack thereof — over human/civil rights.

I’ve have some confidence in some Justices, but even post-Bruen, this illustrates why I have near-zero confidence in the overall Supreme Court.

defense of others, self defense

DC One-Upping “Gun-Free” Zones

January 16, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

Apparently these aren’t working well enough in Washington, DC.

So now they’re going to…

Yep, “murder free zones.”

The court challenges should be fun, as some idiots decide this is an unconstitutional endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs; never mind that they’re going to be posted by a non-governmental non-profit group.

If signs actually do any good (suuurre…) I’d suggest something like this:

IF YOU TRY TO
MURDER
SOMEONE IT IS
LEGAL
FOR THEM TO
KILL
YOU FIRSTMaybe that would get someone to pause for a second or two. Perhaps. For those who can still read.

Regarding the Biblical text: I’m no linguist, but some folks better at ancient languages than I have told me that “Thou shalt not kill” is a mistranslation. Apparently it should read “Thou shalt not murder,” because G-d and the ancient Jews knew the difference between murder and justifiable homicide (self defense), and had separate terms for each.

I’ve always wondered since if that mistranslation was deliberate on the part of religious and secular authorities who wanted to blur the difference, to deter peasants and other downtrodden killing tax collectors and other authoritarian thugs.

authoritarian swine, gun control, Law

Illinois Assault Weapon Ban Oddities

January 14, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 5 Comments

I had occasion to look over the definitions section of Illinois’ new assault weapon ban bill, and I noticed some odd stuff.

First, Illinois achieved a first-in-the-world prize: semiautomatic “assault rifles.”

Knowledgeable types understand that “assault rifle” has long had a specific meaning: a shoulder-fired, selective-fire weapon chambered for an intermediate power cartridge.

Not in Illinois now.

“Assault shotgun or rifle” means any of the following or a copy, regardless of the producer or manufacturer:

The “following is a long list of specific manufacturers’ firearms. It does include “AR15,” but…

“AR-15” (note the dash) is a registered trademark held by Colt. The patents expired, but the trademark lives on. That’s why other companies tend to call their AR variants “XXX-15” or the like. So any AR-pattern firearm made by a company not on that list would appear to have dodged a bullet, and would seem to be still legal in the state (not really, but I’ll get to that).

Some notable AR-pattern manufacturers didn’t make the list. Daniel Defense, for instance.

Farther down in the bill, “assault weapon” gets defined. That’s an “assault pistol” (similarly defined as assault rifle), assault shotgun, assault rifle, and…

(C) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:

The list of characteristics includes the usual: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, and grenade launcher(?). It also lists certain types of grips. Read this very carefully.

Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing.

That’s any stock — pistol grip or no pistol grip — that lets you grip the rifle and still reach the trigger. Should any sheriff other than Cook County try enforcing this monstrosity, I think some hunters will be very surprised to learn their hunting rifles are now assault weapons, which must be registered.

Y’all have fun with that.

Here’s a puzzler. The law has an overly inclusive definition of “assault weapon” which includes “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following.”

But it also has that separate and — overly — specific definition of “assault rifle”: “”Assault shotgun or rifle” means any of the following or a copy, regardless of the producer or manufacturer.” Every firearm listed in that section would already qualify as an “assault weapon” under the broader definition.

Why the two definitions? Did the idiot legislators (or whoever drafted the bill for them) think they were banning actual automatic assault rifles, in addition to darned near every other semiauto rifle, despite the fact that 720 ILCS 5/24-1 already banned automatic weapons?

I’ve asked Rep. Bob Morgan about this. We’ll see if I get a coherent response.

authoritarian swine, gun control, Law

Pistol Brace Final Rule: 293 Pages Of Arbitrary Capriciousness

January 13, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

The ATF’s final rule on whether pistol braces magically turn pistols into short-barreled rifles was signed on January 13, 2023.

Most of the document is rationalization of why they believe they can get away with this, and explaining away NPRM commenters’ objections. They did agree that the proposed form 4999 — which used an arbitrary point system to differentiate between pistols and short-barrel rifles — was flawed. They decided that was sufficiently flawed that they abandoned it.

The rule gives a slight nod to BRUEN:

Nothing in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), changes this analysis. See id at 2162 (Kavanaugh, J. concurring) (reiterating Heller’s finding that “dangerous and
unusual weapons” are outside of the Second Amendment’s protections).

That presupposes that braces inherently make a perfectly acceptable firearm into a “dangerous” device without actually changing the firearm’s function. It assumes that “1.4 million” braced pistols (the ATF’s own estimate of the number extant) are “unusual.” It also completely ignores the “general historical tradition” test laid out in the main decision.

If you scroll down to page 268, you’ll find the actual final rule, and see that they opted for a evaluation system even more “arbitrary, capricious, and incoherent” than the 4999.

The short form now is that a firearm with a pistol brace is a short-barrel rifled if it is:

“a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder”

How much surface area does it take to create a rifle? The rule doesn’t say, leaving it up to “”arbitrary, capricious, and incoherent” FTB evaluators. Just think: the more firearms they can declare short-barrel rifles, the more tax money they can collect. No perverse incentive there, eh?

And has arbitrary “other factors,” which are:

“a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles”

In a saner world, I could almost let that one slide.

“s a length of pull […] consistent with similarly designed rifles”

Length of pull, as The Zelman Partisans has noted, “presupposes that all braced pistols are SBRs until proven otherwise.” Guilty and taxable until proven innocent. It is the ATF after all.

“equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed”

That one is also almost reasonable, if it weren’t for the rest of the BS.

“Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operation”

Since “surface area” is purely arbitrary and undefined, I don’t see how this clarifies anything. But just wait…

“manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials”

Now company advertising flacks can inadvertently turn pistols into rifles, and it has nothing to do with the physical characteristics of the firearm or brace. It gets worse, though…

“the likely use of the weapon in the general community.”

If the brace has some undefined amount of surface area, the ATF can still declare anything a short-barrel rifle simply by deciding that it’s likely some idiot somewhere will use his firearm incorrectly.

We would have been better off with the 4999, which at least didn’t test advertising fliers and ATF agents’ purported precognitive powers.

The rule gives those currently in possession of braced firearms a few options.

Send it to the ATF for evaluation, so see if it can make ot past the magic test and remain a pistol.

Destroy the firearm.

Remove the brace and destroy that.

Replace the firearm barrel with a 16 inch (or more) barrel.

Turn the firearm in to law enforcement or the ATF.

Go to prison on an NFA violation even if you have a letter from the ATF saying your braced pistol isn’t a rifle.

Or you can apply to register it. If you do so through the E-Form system within 120 days of the rules Federal Register publication, the ATF will generously waive the usual tax stamp fee.

ATF delenda est.

Bump-Fire, Courts, Law, SCOTUS

Toldja So: Cargill v. Garland At Fifth Circuit

January 13, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger

I’m human. When I’m right, I like to brag as much as anyone else. And sometimes that means going full-blown “I told you so.”

The Fifthth Circuit ruling in Cargill v. Garland is one of those times. The Fifth overturned the lower court which had found that the ATF’s bump stock (bump stock type device) ban-through-redefining-them-as-machineguns was lawful.

How right was I? This right.

Deference

I noted that Chevron deference 1) only applies when a statute is vague, and 2) should not apply to criminal penalties, only civil. The Fifth agrees with me.

A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of “machinegun” set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.
[…]
Because we hold that the statute is unambiguous, Chevron deference does not apply even if the Chevron framework does.

Usurping Power of Congress

Congress makes laws, and the President signs them into effect. Hopped up, unelected bureaucrats do not. Again, the Fifth Circuit says I’m correct.

Of the sixteen members of our court, thirteen of us agree that an act of Congress is required to prohibit bump stocks, and that we therefore must reverse.

Redefining Trigger To Mean Finger

I pointed out that applying the definition of “function of the trigger to — volitional! — movement of the finger was a semantic nightmare that only made sense to politically driven tyrants who don’t give a damn about actual law. The Fifth Circuit… Yep.

The statutory definition of machinegun utilizes a grammatical construction that ties the definition to the movement of the trigger itself, and not the movement of a trigger finger.

The Court did not get into my point that the bump stock rule-making process violated the Administrative Procedures Act, but given that they found the rule itself is outright wrong, the additional flawed process implementing it was moot.

Since we have a Circuit split on bump stocks, maybe SCOTUS will finally grant cert and hear a case on the ban. I would love to read what Justice Thomas might have to say abou itt; his BRUEN decision was brilliant.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion; when I saw that, I knew it was going to good. He goes into history in surprising detail. This opinion could be used as an American history textbook for a complete school year.

Thomas could create another year of lessons on this one: legislative process and history.

Action, authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Inspiration, Law, resistance, spirit of rebellion

Illinois Assault Weapon Ban

January 12, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 1 Comment

Illinois now has an “assault weapon” ban, complete with registration for “grandfathered” firearms.

Wiser sheriffs says they will not enforce the blatantly unconstitutional law. I would guess they are the ones aware of the SCOTUS decision in BRUEN. Or possibly they recall an observation I made in the 1990s, when California was prepping its own outright ban.

“The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every law enforcement officer out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.”

— Moi

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker doesn’t seem to be cognizant of either the decision or the quote.

“As are all law enforcement all across our state and they will in fact do their job or they won’t be in their job,” Pritzker said.

Well, he’s a Dim; it’s not like he really wants cops anyway.

But since I mentioned California’s ’90s ban and registration, they saw a remarkable 2.33% compliance rate with registration (by their own estimates). The NY SAFE Act did a little betterworse 4.45%. Connecticut rather optimistically claimed to have achieved 13.44% complaince rate. But CT’s numbers are somewhat questionable, seeing as how one single individual “registered” 544,000 high capacity magazines.

Perhaps Illinois will see a similar outburst of malicious compliance and the overly compliant stuffing their database with BS. Could some enterprising freedom-lover register a few dozen evil black rifles at 410 E Jackson Street, Springfield, IL 62701?

Databases: Garbage in, garbage out.

Username

Password


Remember me

Forgot Password?
Join Us

Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.