All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

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

What Mistake?

1 Comment

More gang rivalry in Chicago.

Chicago man admits to shooting 3 undercover federal agents after mistaking them for rival gang members
The shootings occurred on the morning of July 7, 2021, when two agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and an ATF Task Force officer were driving in an unmarked vehicle while conducting a covert federal investigation on the South Side.

McLaurin admitted in a plea agreement that he had mistakenly suspected the officers were members of an opposing gang.

“Mistakenly”? Looks to me like he nailed it.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Uncategorized

Tippy and Pocahontas Strike Again: S.3407

Sen. Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren [Fraud-MA] and Georgia’s Rep. Hank “Tippy” Johnson [Addled-GA04] have filed S. 3407, “A bill to end the epidemic of gun violence and build safer communities by strengthening Federal firearms laws and supporting gun violence research, intervention, and prevention initiatives.” Bill text is not yet available, but the Firearms Policy Coalition expects this to be a re-run of their old H.R. 5717, a veritable victim disarmament wishlist; you might remember that monstrosity.

Johnson’s F******k post supports that notion.

  • Federal gun licensing
  • “Assault weapons” ban
  • Universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks
  • Ban “undetectable/untraceable” guns
  • Nastier ATF FFL inspections
  • Minimum gun/ammo purchasing age of 21y
  • 7 day waiting periods to buy
  • Gun storage laws
  • Ban guns for domestic abusers (that’s already law, so I expect he means for unconvicted accused), and “stalkers” so be careful following people on eX-Twitter or F******k.
  • School campus gun bans
  • Standard capacity mag bans
  • No-due process red flag laws
  • Manufacturer liability for third party misuse (bye-bye, PLCA Act)
  • Higher taxes on firearms
  • Bribes to states to inflict more 2A infringements
  • Funding for anti-gun “research”
  • Funding for “violence intervention” (not more cops, one presumes) and “prevention” programs (which always turn out so well)

Tippy tells us we can get more information at HANKJOHNSON.HOUSE.GOV/GVPCSA, which alternately goes to a 503 SERVICE UNAVAILABLE message, or his home page, which only recursively has the link to his F******k post directing you back to his House website.

I’ll know more when the bill text is published. But a lot of what Tippy listed is stuff that courts are already questioning or striking down: age limits, prohibited status without convictions, magazine limits, gun owner licensing.

Seems like none of of those have much of a general, historical legal tradition.

The good news is that GovTrack gives this a zero percent chance of passing. One indicator is that it’s apparently been referred to the Senate Finance committee, not Judiciary; that suggests it was specifically sent there to die. Probably because no Dim actually wants to be seen trying to pass this with the 2024 elections coming up.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Courts, gun control, Humor, Law

Fifth Circuit On “Ghost Gun” Rule

1 Comment

You’ve got to love the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; they’ve been on a roll lately. They shot down the bump-stock ban in Cargill v. Garland. They struck down the ATF’s pistol brace rule in Mock v. Garland (which was the basis for the Northern District of Texas likewise ruling against the ATF.

Now they’ve turned their attention to the odious ATF’s equally odious frame/receiver rule (declaring unfinished, inert lumps of metal to be firearms) in VanDerStok et al v, Garland. A three judge panel ruled against it.

The judges found that the ATF not only exceeded their authority, but directly contradicted statutory law. I generally agree with them; I’ve made many of the same arguments. But I do want to pick one nit.

ATF’s 1978 regulatory definition sufficiently captured most firearms of the era. Modern firearms, however, have developed such that many firearms no longer fall within the definition. In the Final Rule, ATF states that “the majority of firearms in the United States” no longer have a clear frame” or “receiver” that includes all three elements of the prior definition (that is, a hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism). ATF uses the example of an AR-15,6 which does not have a single housing for the bolt (which is part of the “upper assembly”) and the hammer and trigger (which is part of the “lower assembly”).

That’s not something that happened recently, which legislation just hasn’t caught up with as yet. Striker-fired firearms are hardly new. The first striker-fired firearm was invented in 1878; 60 years before the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, and 90 years before the Gun Control Act of 1968. Semiautomatic pistols, where no one part of the firearm contained all of the defining parts, date back to at least 1897.

It’s now 2023, and those types of firearms have been around for well over a century. And yet Congress never saw fit to include them.

Their Honors also had issues with the ATF’s thinking processes, such as they might be.

There is also a clear logical flaw in ATF’s proposal. As written, the Final Rule states that the phrase “frame or receiver” includes things that are admittedly not yet frames or receivers but that can easily become frames or receivers—in other words: parts. As the district court put it, under the Final Rule, “ATF may properly regulate a component as a ‘frame or receiver’ even after ATF determines that the component in question is not a frame or receiver.” Such a proposition defies logic: “a part cannot be both not yet a receiver and a receiver at the same time.”

Oh! Schrodinger’s gun. As opposed to Chekov’s gun, I suppose.

They caught the ATF attempting conflate laws. The ATF’s rule claimed the power to regulate gun “parts” by noting that the National Firearms Act assigns them the authority to regulate separate parts, like full-auto trigger groups and silencer components, so naturally they can do that with non-NFA parts, right?

No. TL;DR: The authority to regulate non-NFA parts was specifically taken away.

The district court correctly held that ATF has no authority whatsoever to regulate parts that might be incorporated into a “firearm” simply because Congress explicitly removed such authority when it enacted the GCA. The GCA’s predecessor statute, the Federal Firearms Act (“FFA”), had specific language that authorized regulation of “any part or parts of” a firearm. However, Congress removed this language when it enacted the GCA, replacing “any part or parts” with just “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” Thus, the GCA does not allow for regulation of all weapon parts; rather, it limits regulation to two specific types of weapon parts.

While the main decision was largely boring, for those who don’t read these things for fun, Judge Andrew S. Oldham got a little more entertaining in his concurrence. Clearly, he was less than thrilled with the ATF’s refusal to state a definite, objective standard by which to judge when a lump of metal turns into a receiver.

The Final Rule emphasizes this list is “nonexclusive.” And ATF explicitly disclaimed the need to explain how any of these factors would balance in practice: “It is not the purpose of the rule to provide guidance so that persons may structure transactions to avoid the requirements of the law.” This approach violates the Fifth Amendment and its guarantee of fair notice. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012) (“A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.”). The “Government violates this guarantee by taking away someone’s life, liberty, or property under a criminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement.” (emphasis added)

The ATF is whining. “Arbitrary enforcement” is exactly what they wanted. And Oldham caught them. He proceeded to explain in small words for small ATF brains — using pictures — why going from an objective numerical standard of “more than 80% complete” to “we might think it looks like a gun” wasn’t going to cut it. And he wrapped that up with this tidbit.

ATF’s problem is that § 921(a)(3)(B) covers objects that are frames and receivers, not objects that look like frames or receivers. A recent Internet fad illustrates the point. Consider the “cakes that look like food” Internet trend. One could make a cake that looks like a hamburger, just as one could make a cake that looks like a gun frame or receiver. One is “clearly identifiable” as a hamburger, just as the other is “clearly identifiable” as a gun part. But that does not make the former taste like a Big Mac, just as it does not make the latter covered by the GCA. (emphasis added)

An excellent example, and one even a seven year-old can figure out. ATF agents, not so much.

This is not a gun, ATF and “educators.”

Oldham’s final summation says it all.

The Final Rule is limitless. It purports to regulate any piece of metal or plastic that has been machined beyond its primordial state for fear that it might one day be turned into a gun, a gun frame, or a gun receiver. And it doesn’t stop regulating the metal or plastic until it’s melted back down to ooze. The GCA allows none of this. I concur in the majority’s opinion holding the Final Rule is unlawful. And I further concur that the matter should be remanded to the district court to fashion an appropriate remedy for the plaintiffs.

I suppose the ATF could appeal this to the en banc Fifth Circuit, but looking at the judges who upheld the Second Amendment in this, Cargill v. Garland, and Mock v. Garland, I don’t think it’ll change.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Constitution, Courts, gun control, Law

Pistol Braces: Good News, Bad News

There’s a little more good news regarding the ATF’s unlawful and unconstitutional pistol brace rule. Another federal judge has issued an injunction against enforcement of the rule in Britto v. ATF, No. 2:23-cv-19, in the Northern District of Texas.

The good news:

Under the APA, courts must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be … arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or “in excess of statutory jurisdictions, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.”

Arbitrary and capricious? Most definitely, as The Zelman Partisans told the ATF during NPRM commenting period.

This proposed rule is a coherently expressed description of an arbitrary, capricious, and incoherent process of classifying firearms.

They should have listened.

But back to the injunction. Kacsmaryk cites the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Mock v. Garland, which found the rule to violate the Administrative Procedures Act, resulting in an injunction against enforcement of the rule, but only for the plaintiffs in that case

Given the Fifth Circuit’s holding, this Court recognizes that the Rule “was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule” and “must be set aside as unlawful.

That was the good news. The Rule is unlawful because the ATF violated the Administrative Procedures Act (which is something of a habit for them). Better news: the injunction is nationwide and not limited to the plaintiffs in this case.

The bad news…

That holding alone establishes that Plaintiffs “have demonstrated, a fortiori, an actual success on the merits of their APA challenge to the … Rule.”

It goes without saying that constitutional questions should be avoided if there are independent ‘ground[s] upon which the case may be disposed of.”

No, it should not go without saying. Why does statutory law — the APA, in this case — take precedence over the Constitution and Second Amendment, the question of which the plaintiffs definitely raised?

Laziness, and fear of dealing with constitutionality until absolutely forced to do so. Which conveniently leaves the ATF free to try yet another unconstitutional rule, until some judge finally decides to take note of said Constitution.

And as Judge Tipton noted in a similar case, “it would be improper for this Court to now evaluate constitutional issues” given that “the Fifth Circuit has already decided that the Final Rule violates the APA.”

Grow some balls, Kacsmaryk. Give us a constitutionality precedent, one way or the other.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Constitution, Courts, gun control, Law, SCOTUS

I Expect Clarence Thomas Is Fuming Right About Now

Because a three judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld, 2-1, Illinois’ “assault weapon” ban in Bevis v. Naperville (which is actually six separate challenges to “assault weapon” bans in Illinois, consolidated), and mangled BRUEN in the process. To do this, the lying bastards started with the BS “weapons of war” argument. And went downhill from there.

Honestly, this decision reads like something you might expect from the Ninth Circuit.

We find substantial support for the proposition that the Arms protected by the Second Amendment do not include weapons that may be reserved for military use.

Because obviously AR-15s are just like “a nuclear weapon such as the now-retired M388 Davy Crockett system, with its 51-pound W54 warhead.” Seriously; they equated semi-auto rifles to nuclear warheads.

And to support that position, Easterbrook and Wood lied about Supreme Court rulings, starting with MILLER, 1939 which said exactly the opposite. This Court resorts to citing the dissent to magically turn military use into common, lawful civilian use, and pretends HELLER said that.

But after Heller, we know Miller does not address a weapon’s military use. Because the National Firearms Act of 1934 targeted the firearms most commonly used by criminals and gangs, Miller’s “lawful use” language relates to criminal use, not military use.

The term “lawful use” doesn’t even appear in MILLER. It had no “lawful use” test. It only used a militia use test:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

HELLER addressed civilian use of weapons not specifically acknowledged as militarily useful, and asked if possession of those by civilians could be banned. The court concluded that civilian weapons in common, lawful use could not be banned; that there is an individual right to them. And that the right to those not necessarily military-style weapons was subject to reasonable limits.

HELLER didn’t overturn MILLER; it built on it, and added to it. Those judges damned well know what MILLER and HELLER really said. The fact that they twist the words, and outright lie, about them proves their intent was not innocent.

Now that Easterbrook and Wood have pretended that “weapons of war” aren’t 2A-protected, they have to “establish” that AR-15s are military weapons.

Coming directly to the question whether the weapons and feeding devices covered by the challenged legislation enjoy Second Amendment protection, at the first step of the Bruen analysis, we conclude that the answer is no. We come to this conclusion because these assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are much more like machineguns and military-grade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense (or so the legislature was entitled to conclude).8 Indeed, the AR-15 is almost the same gun as the M16 machinegun.

How do they know?

The only meaningful distinction, as we already have noted, is that the AR-15 has only semiautomatic capability (unless the user takes advantage of some simple modifications that essentially make it fully automatic), while the M16 operates both ways.

Sure, an illegally modified AR-15 is is the same thing as an M16, just illegally mounting a 120mm cannon on a Trabant makes it an Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tank.

Speaking — currently — illegal modifications, these jokers used a timely example.

The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easy it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a “bump stock” (as the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas event had done) or auto-sear to it, thereby making it, in essence, a fully automatic weapon.

Personally, I would have skipped that one, since the same day they issued this ruling, SCOTUS — facing a multi-Circuit split on the bump-stock ban — granted cert to Garland v. Cargill, challenging the ban.

So… they’ve lied their way into declaring that the 2A doesn’t protect “weapons of war,” and that AR-15s are in that class. Now they also had to deal with BRUEN‘s general, historical legal tradition test, which they handled with still more verbal manipulation and selective editing.

The analysis then moves to second step, which calls on the “government [to] justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. The Court predicted that this second step would be relatively easy in some instances, when historical analogues are easy to find. But in other instances, it recognized that the task would be challenging. It singled out “cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes,” which “may require a more nuanced approach.”

These two would have you believe that if something is new enough, then general, historical legal traditions don’t apply. But what they left out from BRUEN is this part.

Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it.

Yes, the Constitution and the Second Amendment still apply to “new” things like the five decades-old design of the AR-15. Some restrictions on how they are used might be constitutional, but a ban isn’t.

As for “dramatic technological changes” that those early folks could never imagine…

James Madison, known for his role in drafting the Bill of Rights (including that pesky 2A) lived through the rise of repeating firearms, breechloaders, paper cartridges, percussion caps, metallic cartridges, pinfire cartridges, centerfire cartridges, revolvers, and mass production of firearms.

Heck, an early machinegun was pitched to the US War Office in 1812, and patented in 1813 — during Madison’s presidency (and was a refinement of a 16th century machinegun).

Yet never once did Madison stop and say, “Whoa, guys! We didn’t have any of this new shit in mind. The Second Amendment is just for muskets.”

Speaking of “patented”, not only could the Founders envision dramatic technological changes, they counted on it and deliberately promoted it.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Yes, liars, the BRUEN test applies to AR-15s. And I challenge you to provide a citation of the nation’s general, historical legal tradition of banning civilian possession of “weapons of war.” Bear in mind you’ll have to explain away another pesky provision of the Constitution.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

In case the judges are unfamiliar with Letters of Marque pay attention, too):

Letter of marque, the name given to the commission issued by a belligerent state to a private shipowner authorizing him to employ his vessel as a ship of war. A ship so used is termed a privateer.

Not only was civilian ownership of real weapons of war not banned, they — again — counted on it. Muskets, rifles, cannon, warships; all of them. Moreso, in the case of muskets or rifles, they required private possession of those “weapons of war.”

Granted, these robed morons did cite some legal “traditions” that they would have you believe support a ban on an entire arbitrary class of firearms. But what they came up with were a series of local ordinances barring discharge of muskets and cannon in town, some isolated bans on Bowie knives, or openly carrying certain types of firearms.

They couldn’t find anything in relevant history of a general nature; and remember that BRUEN specifies that isolated local laws don’t count:

The bare existence of these localized restrictions cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence of an otherwise enduring American tradition permitting public carry.

There’s nothing of a general law citation until the National Firearms Act of 1934, 143 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment. So my challenge stands.

The third member of the panel, Judge Brennan sanely dissented with his crazed colleagues. While he also addressed procedural issues with the passage of the state ban, he hit on the issues I’ve covered; albeit more formally and politely. Like me, he took issue with Easterbrook and Wood’s mangling and misinterpretations of HELLER and BRUEN. He also objected their “It’s military, so it isn’t protected” position: arms are arms, they’re all protected; some can be regulated but not banned.

I liked this bit that Brennan included, about the whole scary “AR-15s are weapons of war” thing:

The AR-15 is a civilian, not military, weapon. No army in the world uses a service rifle that is only semiautomatic.

That’s a point I’ve been raising for years. None do; the last country I found using them switched to select-fire assault rifles three decades ago.

All in all, I look forward to this being appealed to SCOTUS. I’m sure Clarence Thomas will insist the Court take this up, just so he can judicially bitch-slap Easterbrook and Wood for shredding BRUEN and HELLER.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Uncategorized

Lewiston Shooting And Red Flag Laws

Regarding the mass shooting in Maine, I received this in an email.

A bit more on SFC Robert Card: Army spox says that after his medical evaluation in July — done after unit leadership observed him ‘behaving erratically’ — the Army directed he “should not have a weapon, handle ammunition, and not participate in live fire activity.”

Another person commented:

Well that fits the narrative well. More “ammo” to justify red flag laws.

Not really. In fact, some folks will probably hope this goes away, because they won’t want to draw attention to the massive series of failures on the part of law enforcement.

Maine has a “yellow flag law,” instead of the left’s preferred no-due process “red flag” laws.

The law differs from red flag laws in that it requires police first to get a medical practitioner to evaluate the person and find them to be a threat before police can petition a judge to order the person’s firearms to be seized.

A formal evaluation by a medical professional and a hearing. How ’bout that? What the left doesn’t like about this is that only the police can request this, and that hearing.

In the case of the Lewiston killer, the police had every reason and opportunity to invoke the yellow flag law.

In May, in a written statement, the perp’s ex-wife informed the police that he was mentally unstable, a danger to others, and that he possessed several firearms.

Other family members contacted the police to inform them that he was unstable and dangerous. Law enforcement attempted several “wellness checks,” sometimes reaching, somethimes not. At one point, the sheriff reportedly told a responding deputy to blow it off; because the sheriff knew of the killer-to-be, and figured he’d just get over it as he had other times.

In July, he was involuntarily committed, making him a prohibited person. Reportedly, New York law enforcement was involved.

In September, the National Guard informed Maine law enforcement that he was nuts and dangerous. For once, they did something: they issued a statewide alert on him.

And cancelled it a few days later. About a week later, he started his killing spree.

At no point did Maine law enforcement decide that this guy, whom they knew to be 1) crazy, 2) dangerous, and 3) armed, should be “yellow flag” and taken into custody for evaluation and seizing his firearms. Now add in that, with the National Guard’s alert, they should alos have known that he was a prohibited person. And took no action.

All the Baker Acts, red flag laws, and yellow flag laws in the world won’t help if the authorities refuse to use them. In Card’s case, I suspect that he was part of the good ol’ boy network; as a firearms trainer, he may have even trained the sheriff’s deputies. So the sheriff didn’t want to cause the guy legal problems; after all, it was as if he’d killed anyone. Yet. He’ll get over it. Again. Right?.

So they didn’t, and he didn’t. And poeple died because of it.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Constitution, gun control, gun grabbers, Law, Rights, SCOTUS

A Mass Shooting Solution?

1 Comment

I ran across a peculiar column last week, but I held off commenting on it.

Mass Shootings: If No One Else Will Offer a Solution, I Will
While everyone is screaming to ban “weapons of war” or whatever the ridiculous phrase du jour is, nobody is offering any kind of solution. We keep saying we need to “have real conversations about mental health,” but we never do. So if we’re not going to ban firearms or have a kumbaya drum circle for mental health, and if no one else is going to offer a solution, I will.

That’s right, yours truly has a policy idea that might move us in the right direction. Because I am going out on a limb here, I’ll go ahead and say that I welcome other ideas, influences, and perspectives. All I ask is that we keep the disagreements civil when we comment down below. Lastly, I use the word “firearm” to cover any weapon that relies on a firing pin, as well as ammunition with a percussion primer. With this definition, make, model, or capacity does not matter.

The reason I held back is this proposal confused the heck out me. It appears at PJ Media, which is a fairly conservative outlet with — usually — a firm grounding in the Constitution and reality. Ashley McCully appears to be a regular contributor.

By McCully’s proposal is anything but Constitution- and reality-based. Before I tore her a figurative new one, I considered the possibiltiy that this is satire. The law she proposes reads like a far-left Dimocrat wishlist; it’s a thoroughly impractical, immoral, and unconstitutional rape of rights.

On the other hand we have the column’s URL: a-modest-proposal-to-prevent-mass-shootings-and-preserve-gun-rights-n1738194

That certainly hearkens back to the very model of literary satire. But was she writing satire, or did an editor pick that URL to poke fun at her “serious” proposal?

I attempted to contact her, but heard nothing for days. So I’m going assume that she meant what she said.

Here goes.

Regardless of how the firearm is purchased, gifted, bequeathed, or obtained, the individual taking receipt of the firearm must present a written statement from a licensed mental health professional endorsing the requesting individual as mentally stable and competent enough to possess a firearm.

That’s an interesting take on the Second Amendment, apparently now reading A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people who have been medically approved to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Up yours, Ashley. And you might want to run your idea past Clarence Thomas, because that requirement is a massive fail on the BRUEN test of “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

She’d be hard pressed to find and such law in our national tradition, seeing as how the very field of “psychology” didn’t exist until 1854, and didn’t get rolling in the United States until around 1875. And medical licensing? That wasn’t really a thing until the 1870s. And the first actually restrictive medical licensing law was passed in 1881, and only upheld by the Supreme Court in 1889.

In the event an individual is deemed mentally unstable and/or incompetent to possess a firearm by a licensed health professional, then it will also be deemed reasonable to search any and all property of the individual by law enforcement for the sole purpose of identifying and seizing deadly weapons, to include firearms. The written diagnosis by a licensed mental health professional will be declared suitable for probable cause for a warrant to be issued.

There are a couple of problems here. Begging permission to obtain a firearm, and failing to get that permission, is probable cause to ransack a home for the firearm he didn’t get?!

And currently, it would be a HIPAA violation for that licensed mental health professional to voluntarily forward that personal health information, the diagnosis, to the cops. You’ll need to amend 45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(i)), too, Ashely.

But that’s moot; because no sane mental health pro is going to issue certification.

If the requesting individual commits any crime with a firearm, the license of the endorsing mental health professional will be suspended throughout the criminal investigation. If the requesting individual is found guilty of any crime with a firearm, then the endorsing mental health professional may lose their license permanently and may be subject to criminal charges.

Note the lack of specification of time frame or what firearm is used. If someone gets a gun, lives peacefully for 30 years, then sudden decides to unlawfully pull a trigger — maybe of a gun that some other doc signed off on — the original doc loses his license and goes to jail. Both, in fact. What doctor is going to assume that perpetual liability? Since it would effectively be impossible to get approval, this effectively bans private ownership of firearms.

Speaking of liability…

Regardless of relationship, if a firearm is used to commit any crime by any person, the registered owner of that firearm will be held criminally liable.

If I jump through McCully’s hoops and get a gun, I would be criminally liable if a burglar broke into my house, shot me, tore my gun safe out of the floor, ripped it open with a plasma cutter, took one of my guns, and used it to rob someone else. Ashley’s liability language makes no exception.

Up yours with a prickly pear, Ashley.

Oh, and did you notice that “registered owner” bit? Yep, her wanna-be law presupposes registration. Language in other parts make it clear that the registry she so blithely assumes would include currently owned firearms, not just those bought under her new police state process.

I’m going to guess, like Hollywood writers who have cops checking gun registrations in southern states, McCully lives in a state that does have registration and stupidly assumes everyone else does, too.

Hint, Ashley: most of the country does not register firearms and owners. And in some states, Georgia and Florida for example, creating a registry is serious felony.

I’m skipping some other — mostly liability — points, and going straight to the finale. Which either solidly establishes this as satire, or Ashley as bug-f##k nuts.

Anyone connected to an individual who has been deemed mentally unstable and/or incompetent enough to possess a firearm and has had at least one firearm or deadly weapon seized by the State under Title II, including but not limited to family, friends, colleagues, roommates, associates, or acquaintances, must provide a secondary verbal and written affirmation that they will be held criminally liable for any crime committed by anyone involving the firearms for which they are registered owners.

You may need to read that a couple of time to parse it out.

If you know someone in passing — a neighbor down the street with whom you exchange greetings — that is a prohibited person for mental reasons…

…even if you don’t know it…

…you must swear verbally and in writing (redundant, that) that you will be held criminally liable if said acquaintance… well, see the earlier burglary/plasma cutter scenario.

Ashley’s proposal doesn’t include any mechanism for identifying and contacting the prohibited person’s family, friends, colleagues, roommates, associates, or acquaintances, or anyone “connected to” and sharing their personal legal and medical history. So I’ll be damned if I know how you’re supposed to know to make that “affirmation,” much less to whom.

I would really prefer that is satire, but the fact that McCully wouldn’t respond doesn’t look good.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Humor, resistance

A Beginner’s Guide To Ghost Guns

1 Comment

Are you interested in building your own firearms at home, but aren’t really sure how to get started? Not to worry; we the New York State Police has your back.

In an effort to crack down on so-called “ghost guns,” the NYSP inadvertently put together the perfect beginner’s how-to manual:

Ghost Guns: Past, Present, and Future

It has all the info you need to start. Descriptions of the technologies available (80% receivers, CNC milling, 3D printing), along with suppliers for the various tools, and complete parts lists and suppliers.

It tells you what hand tools you’ll be wanting. It even tells which types of plastic filament are best suited for firearms and the model of 3D printer you choose. It shows you basic steps you’ll be following.

NYSP didn’t mean it this way; it was supposed to be an internal tyranny tool. But someone leaked it, and we aim to keep it leaked.

Download your COPY now.

Hat tip to David Codrea.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, Law

[Updated] Still A Lot Of Confusion Surrounding The Maine Shooter

1 Comment

Now that the active incident is over, some reporting is stabilizing. The good less bad news is that the initial reports of 20, and then 22, dead and 50 injured have been scaled back to 18 dead and 13 wounded. Perhaps the initial “injured” claims included folks hurt as they scrambled for cover, but not shot.

The weapon used has shifted from “AR-15” to .308 “battle rifle” or “sniper rifle.” In fact, it now appears to have been a recently purchased Ruger SFAR, which is an AR-pattern rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO/.308 Win. It is semiautomatic only, so it certainly isn’t a select-fire battle rifle. But some reasonably knowlegeable people do apply the “battle rifle” label to military semi-autos in full-power rifle chamberings, so I may let that one slide.

The “recently purchased” aspect brings us to a fuzzy point of confusion. Was the shooter a prohibited person or not? And if he was, how was he able to lawfully purchased the weapon?

Early reports mentioned that he had threatened to “shoot up” the military base at Saco, Maine, and that he had been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks. Since then, Maine law enforcement have stated that the shooter had been taken in for a mental health evaluation that did not rise to the level of involuntary commitment. So it might appear that he was not a prohibited person (though it’s fair to wonder why the authorities failed to invoke Maine’s yellow flag law).

But was that Saco-area threat what got him the the two week “committal”? Other reports said his military commander had him committed, and that appears to have happened near West Point in New York, during a training exercise.

Are Maine authorities talking about the Maine or New York incident as the “non-committal” hold? Or were there two separate incidents of the shooter-to-be being involuntarily held?

It matters, because what the Maine police seem to be describing would not make him a prohibited person, while a two week committal in New York, by order of command, certainly would.

Updated, October 30, 12:20PM: This seems pretty clear.

Card, who killed 18 people and wounded an additional 13 at a bar and a bowling alley on Oct. 25, attempted to buy a silencer on Aug. 5, but was unable to complete the purchase after admitting on a federal form that he had previously been committed to a mental institution, according to ABC. The Army committed Card to a psychiatric care facility for several weeks in July after he reported hearing voices, behaved “erratically” and threatened the base where he was stationed at the time. (RELATED: Maine Mass Shooting Suspect Robert Card Found Dead, Police Confirm)

“He came in and filled out the form, he checked off a box that incriminated himself saying that he was in an institution,” Rick LaChapelle, who owns the Coastal Defense Firearms store where Card tried to purchase the silencer, told ABC News. “Our staff was fantastic, let him finish filling out the form, and said, ‘I’m sorry, Mr. Card, we cannot give you this… at this point in time, we cannot release this silencer to you because of the answers that you’ve given us.’”

Yes, the Army had involuntarily committed him.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Law

Lewiston, Maine Shooting

1 Comment

Nasty news to wake up to: At least 22 dead, and 50 injured.

Maine mass shooting live updates: Sheltered Maine resident ‘locked and loaded’ during manhunt for mass shooting person of interest
A gunman killed at least 22 people in separate shootings across Lewiston, Maine, Wednesday night, according to law enforcement sources and reports. Maine mass shooting live updates: Sheltered Maine resident ‘locked and loaded’ during manhunt for mass shooting person of interest

The person of interest behind the deadly mass shooting in Maine is reportedly a trained firearms instructor believed to be in the Army Reserve, according to law enforcement sources in the state.

Robert Card, 40, was stationed out of Saco, Maine and reported “hearing voices” and threatened to shoot up the National Guard Base where he was stationed, the sources said.

Ignorant loudmouth Shannon Watts of Mom’s Demand Bloodshed naturally blames Maine’s allegedly lax gun laws; specifically a lack of a 72 hour waiting period to purchase a firearm, and a lack of a “red flag” law.

I blame something else. Card himself, of course; but…

According to law enforcement, CARD recently reported mental health issues to include hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard Base in Saco, ME. CARD was also reported to have been committed to mental health facility for two weeks during summer 2023 and subsequently released.

So… they have a crazy guy threatening to kill people. He gets committed to a psych ward…

And then let loose. Maybe that last part was a mistake.

Card was reportedly a firearms instructor; my guess is that he probably already had firearms, and a 72 hour waiting period would not have prevented this. Keeping the dangerous guy locked up would.

So what if Maine lacks a n-due process “red flag” law? Anyone who had been threatened by Card — that is, anyone and everyone assigned to that base — could have requested a perfectly normal protective order and requested any firearm be removed .

And why would they be removed, aside from the death threats? “[H]ave been committed to mental health facility.

That’s why; 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(4). He was a prohibited person.

If he did have to buy his firearm for this slaughter, that would should have prevented him from buying one from licensed dealer. (And likely from people who knew him and knew he’d gone nuts.)

Someone was supposed to report Card’s committal to NICS. If the military committed him, well, we know the military has a major reporting problem.

Civil authorities aren’t much better.

It’s a little early to be blaming a lack of gun laws for this.

Something else that I hope to hear more about is Card’s auditory hallucinations. That’s common in schizophrenia. But as a retired nurse mentioned, 40 years old is an odd time for schizophrenia to pop up. It usually shows up much earlier in life.

Other things can cause hallucinations: Lewy Body Dementia, brain tumors. But something I ran across recently came to mind.

One of the adverse effects of the ChinCOVID pseudo-vaccine that’s been showing up is hallucinations. Doctor’s have noted it, and it shows up in studies. As a reservist apparently on active status (assigned to the base), there’s a good chance that Card received the ChinCOVID inoculations.

But that’s just speculation. Card is not yet in custody. But once caught (or his body found), maybe we’ll learn more about what caused his break.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail