All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

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

Good News From California

But don’t get too excited yet.

Federal Judge Strikes Down California’s Decades-Old ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban: ‘No Historical Pedigree’
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, struck down the 1989 ban, enacted by the California legislature in response to the Stockton school shooting, which prohibits the transfer, manufacturing and possession of certain semiautomatic weapons. Benitez wrote that American tradition “is rich and deep in protecting a citizen’s enduring right to keep and bear common arms like rifles, shotguns, and pistols” and does not include firearm restrictions based on “looks or attributes.”

That’s our guy Benitez again. At least on 2A issues, he’s a constitutionalist, and he read and grasped BRUEN (something most of the Ninth Circuit Appeals haven’t managed).

The problem is that, as always, this case is going to keep bouncing back and forth to the Ninth for years, with endless stays of Benitez’s ruling. Unless and until SCOTUS starts issuing contempt of Supreme Court bench warrants for those who are willfully defying the Second Amendment and BRUEN.

But given that Chief Justice Roberts sided with the gun grabbers on the frame/receiver rule, don’t get too excited about warrants either.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

SCOTUS: Enforcement Or Irrelevance

Pigpen51 left a comment on an earlier column regarding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals complicity in California’s brazen violations of the Constitution. He thinks the Supreme Court needs to make some rulings with absolutely no wiggle room to allow California — and like-minded oathbreakers — to continue enforcing bad laws.

I hope that they do so with, shall we say gusto, or extreme prejudice, or with a heavy gavel? Because if they leave even the smallest crack in the rebuke, no doubt the anti Constitution liberals will find a way to yet again hold things up

Crack? Taking advantage of a “crack” is what they did with the original Gun-Free School Zones” law. SCOTUS tossed it, so they passed a new bill virtually identical to the original, with “moved in interstate commerce” tacked on.

Mostly they don’t worry about cracks anymore. If a law gets tossed, they simply pass it again with the punctuation slightly altered, and declare that it’s new and SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on this one. That forces the pro-freedom types to waste time and money to fight what is essentially the exact same law. Blue state legislators and AGs don’t mind because it isn’t their money they’re wasting; it’s yours.

SCOTUS should have put a stop to that decades ago. Now, emboldened by SCOTUS’ failure to slap them down, they’re escalating. California just passed a couple more bills that clearly violate BRUEN. And they know it. Newsom said so, saying that they will not be bound by the “general, historical legal tradition” demanded by BRUEN.

“Newsom framed the move as a response to the “rights reduction” caused by gun laws that function under a “1790s framework,” a recording of the signing showed.”

And it wasn’t just Newscum saying it. It’s actually in the bill passed and signed. (It helps to read the “Whereas” rationalization preface to bills, and not just the hard action portions.)

No longer will they need to “keep kicking that can down the road.” If SCOTUS doesn’t start arresting these scumbags, they don’t need to “change the makeup of the court” that they’ll ignore anyway.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Ninth Circuit Judicial Games

No doubt you’ve heard that federal Judge Benitez once again ruled in Duncan v. Bonta that California’s ban on “high capacity” magazines is unconstitutional; particularly in light of SCOTUS’ BRUEN decision. He stayed his injunction until October 2, to allow the state time to file yet another appeal.

And once again the state did appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Which took the unusual action of taking the state’s “emergency” request for an administrative stay past October 2 en banc. Normally such requests for administrative stays is done by a three judge panel.

The en banc Ninth issued an administrative stay until October 10, 2023.

However, a couple of the Circuit judges wrote dissenting opinions, objecting to the Court gaming the system to delay or deny Second Amendment rights.

I found the dissents to be rather interesting.

Bumatay, J., dissenting:

For over a decade, our court has improperly interest-balanced our way around the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has had enough of it. See N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. __, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). In Bruen, the Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment must no longer be deemed a disfavored right.

With this clear direction from the Supreme Court, you might think that our court would return to regular order and handle this Second Amendment case like all others before our court. And in the normal course, emergency motions would be handled by a three-judge panel. But not here. Because this is a Second Amendment case, we now take the unprecedented step of taking an emergency motion as an en banc panel in the first instance. While our rules may leave room for such an unusual step, discretion and wisdom counsel against it. Indeed, to my knowledge, no en banc panel of this court has ever handled an emergency administrative stay motion as an initial matter. And the majority cites no precedent otherwise. So I’m left wondering why we rush to do something so unorthodox.

Judge VanDyke doesn’t wonder:

I share Judge Bumatay’s concerns about the irregularities created by this en banc panel’s all-too-predictable haste to again rule against the Second Amendment. Apparently, even summary reversal by the Supreme Court has not tempered the majority’s zeal to grab this case as a comeback, stay the district court’s decision, and make sure they—not the original three-judge panel—get to decide the emergency motion (and ultimately, the eventual merits questions) in favor of the government. I think it is clear enough to everyone that a majority of this en banc panel will relinquish control of this case only when it is pried from its cold, dead fingers. And I think it is clear enough to everyone why.

Excellent turnabout of the “cold, dead fingers” cliche, Your Honor. I laughed, which rarely happens when reading court decisions and dissents.

And yes, the reason is clear enough. The Ninth is determined to allow California to continue violating the 2A, and is play games with stays and appeals, and bumping cases back to lower courts instead of doing their SCOTUS-mandated job.

if the Ninth had to take this request en banc, what they properly should have done was say Stay denied. We already sent the state’s appeal back to the district for a final ruling in light of BRUEN. The district court granted a permanent injunction against the ban in light of BRUEN. The lower court’s stay is lifted, and the permanent injunction against enforcement is upheld.

And I’d bet good money that when the state’s actual appeal is filed, the Ninth will find an excuse to bounce the case back to the district again, rather than make a final decision so that either 1) the state concedes, or 2) the state finally appeals to the Supreme Court.

This sort of judicial lawfare is just going to continue until the Supreme Court finally takes notice of lower courts and other officials blowing off its decisions, and starts finding offenders in contempt and issues bench warrants.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Uniquely American

Did you watch the second place round GOP debate? I didn’t, but it’s sure in the newsfeeds this morning. From what I’ve seen, the most notable performance wasn’t from the (vice) presidential candidates, but co-moderator Ilia Calderón.

“Mental health concerns are not unique to United States. But gun violence is.”

“Gun violence” is unique to the United States?!

Calderón is from Colombia, and seems to still be a Colombian national despite living in the US for years. In 2020, Colombia‘s gun homicide rate was a mere 16.67/100K. By compariion, uniquely violent America’s rate was a whopping… um, er… 5.9/100K.

My, my; Calderón’s home country has a gun homicide rate nearly three times that of the US. In fact, Colombia ranks 8th for firearm homicide rate, while the US is…

18th. And that’s despite the US having around twelve times as many firearms per capita. We have more guns, but those peaceful Colombians blow each other away with theirs more often.

Apparently Ms. Calderón relocated to the US in 2001, when her home country had a gun homicide rate of 57.11/100K. Perhaps she thought the US, with a rate of 3.98/100K at the time looked a little safer.


My personal contributions to The Zelman Partisans amount to over 50% of all of our columns. I fear this makes TZP a little one-sided. Please, we welcome views and columns from other people. If you are interested in writing about 2A issues, particularly from a Jewish perspective, contact me.


Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

More Victim Disarmament In California

Governor Newsom signed a couple of more bills yesterday, as if Commifornia didn’t have enough laws.

SB 2 raises the age to purchase any firearm to 21 years, and increases areas where firearm possession is banned.

within any state or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the public

Governor’s Mansion, or any other residence of the Governor, the residence of any other constitutional officer, or the residence of any Member of the Legislature. (The governor’s mansion? Perhaps Newscum realizes how unpopular he’s becoming.)

the grounds of the Governor’s Mansion or any other residence of the Governor, the residence of any other constitutional officer, or the residence of any Member of the Legislature.

any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport

a public transit facility

an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.

They generously exempt “place of residence or place of business or on private property.” If you live in a school zone and want to take any firearm that could be concealed carried somewhere else, it must be unloaded and locked in a case and transported in a motor vehicle or locked in the trunk of the motor vehicle. That means if your sole means of transportation is foot or bike, you’re screwed. Same with public transit buses, unless the bus can pick you up directly on your private property, and drop you off on private property.

But just in case they might have missed an area, there’s 25850

A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city, city and county, or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county or city and county.

Streets, sidewalks, parks…

I’m sure all of California’s frustrated gangbangers are fretting over how this will impact their crime sprees.

But of you still want to buy a gun, and you’ve turned 21, prepare to shell out a lot more money. AB 28 adds a new 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. I expect ammo sellers in Nevada are pleased.

I’ll bet you’re thinking that these restrictions might run afoul of the BRUEN test of “general, historical legal tradition.” Newscum thought of that.

Newsom framed the move as a response to the “rights reduction” caused by gun laws that function under a “1790s framework,” a recording of the signing showed.

Yep, this was intended to out-right violate the BRUEN decision. Judge Benitez will have fun with this.


This column puts my personal contributions to The Zelman Partisans over 50% of all of our columns. I fear this makes TZP a little one-sided. Please, we welcome columns from other people. If you are interested in writing about 2A issues, particularly from a Jewish perspective, contact me.


Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

[Update] An Appropriate Use Of Force?

There’s a trial in Virginia over a shooting. Let me describe the reported circumstances, and let you decide what you’d have done.

You’re minding your own business, when a 6′ 5″ “goon” (his own monicker, by the way) walks up on you. He sticks his hand in your face and calls you a “dips**t”. You repeatedly tell him to stop, but he refuses. You keep backing away, but he keeps closing on you, still calling you a “dips**t.” You try to knock his hand out your face, but he continues.

Would you be frightened, concerned for your physical safety?

Would you shoot the hulking threat?

Alan Colie did shoot the goon; a single shot to the abdomen. And was arrested for it.

Cook, who is 6-foot-5, could be seen holding a cell phone about 6 inches from Colie’s face. The cellphone broadcasted the phrase “Hey dips—-, quit thinking about my twinkle” through a Google Translate app several times.

Colie could be heard saying “stop” on three separate occasions and tried to back away from Cook, who continued to advance towards him.

Colie attempted to knock the phone away from his face before he allegedly pulled out a gun and shot Cook in the lower left chest.

The “rest of the story” is that the goon is a YouTube “prankster,” who has had multiple run-ins with law enforcement over his disgusting, frightening, and threatening “pranks” pulled on unsuspecting strangers. A sane person of normal intelligence might learn from those encounters that such “pranks” are dangerous.

Not Cook.

YouTube prankster Tanner Cook said in court on Tuesday that he had no idea he had scared or angered Alan Colie, 31, who ended up allegedly shooting him during a prank.

And why would he even consider the possibility that his victim might be scared? After all, it’s not like any of his other targets were…

Cook said during the hearing that he tries to confuse targets of his pranks for the amusement of his online audience and doesn’t try to elicit fear or anger, but said his targets often react that way.

Oh. So he already knew that his subjects often perceive him as a threat — just as Colie did — but still thought thought the risk of instilling that fear would be fun.

Would I have shot the goon? Quite possibly, given the scenario described in court. I would certainly have drawn my sidearm and issued one last warning. Then, whether I fired or not would depend on Cook passing the impromptu IQ test.

The prosecution in this case maintains that the shooting was unjustified because the goon was “unarmed.”

“It was stupid. It was silly. And you may even think it was offensive. But that’s all it was — a cellphone in the ear that got Tanner shot.”

No, it was disparity of force. Colie was threatened by a person much larger and stronger; a person who refused to cease his threatening actions. Cook didn’t need a weapon to be a danger, he was a weapon. And while Cook might not have intended to be a threat, Colie didn’t know that; he only knew what he was experiencing, and that was the actions of Cook, who admitted that he knew his victims “often” saw his acts as threatening.

Juries are weird, so I don’t know how this will turn; but I know how it should: acquittal.

As for goon Cook, he clearly is still failing life’s ongoing intelligence test. I suspect he’ll finally encounter someone less restrained than Colie — who only fired a single shot to stop the advancing threat — who will empty his magazine center mass, ending those “pranks” for good.

Update, 9/29/2023: The verdict is in. Colie was acquitted of the two felony malicious wounding and malicious shooting in an occupied structure charges. Weirdly, though, he was convicted of misdemeanor use of a firearm during a felony the same jury said he didn’t committed. Colie’s attorney is addressing that.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Expect The Country To Be Flooded With Illegals

Illegal guns, that is. Dopey Gropin’ Joe Biden is creating a new White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Tomorrow, President Biden will announce the establishment of the first-ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention to reduce gun violence, which has ravaged communities across the country, and implement and expand upon key executive and legislative action which has been taken to save lives.

It’ll be headed by VP Kneepads Harris. Based on her performance as the border czar, and the ensuing flood of illegals and drugs, I suppose we can expect similar results.

Maybe I’ll finding some of those “guns on the street” that I keep hearing about.

The sad reality is that they may have finally found a job that Harris will actually do: push more victim-disarmament laws, regs, and rules.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Remember Grisham’s Excuse For Her NM Gun Ban?

Here’s an update on NM Dictator Grisham’s unconstitutional order banning public possession of firearms.

Recall that she cited three cases of children killed with guns as her excuse for raping the US and state constitutions. Two cases definitely were committed by people in unlawful possession of firearms, which made it unlikely that the perps would obey Gov. Stalin’s order; she later admitted that criminals wouldn’t obey.

More information on the third case is now available.

The suspects have been caught. The police say it was gang-related (duh), and a case of mistaken identity. The perps were after a man in a white truck, but shot the wrong white truck. One perp was already wanted on drug charges, so… prohibited person. The second perp was busted a week after the shooting when transporting 22 pounds of fentanyl. He had gang-type neck tats covered up with makeup; I’ll make a WAG that he was also already a prohibited person at the time of the shooting. Official charging docs should be available later today.

So every shooting that Gov. Stalin cited to rationalize her unconstitutional ban wouldn’t have been stopped by it. Because criminals don’t obey laws, much less tyrannical edicts.

The Biden administration is never going to charge Grisham for her 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights and 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law violations. But just maybe, if Trump or another Republican somehow gets elected next year, he can be pressured into making the DOJ do the right thing.

Probably not.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Hey! My “Engaged In The Business” NPRM Comment Finally Appeared.

It only took four tries, and a week, but they finally accepted one from me.

Regulations.gov claims…

Posted by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau on Sep 15, 2023

…but I happened to check on the 15th, and it was not found.

Between my personal commenting and TZP’s, we only have a 42.9% success rate in getting the ATF to accept comments.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Two-Tiered Justice?

Hunter Biden has been indicted for possessing a firearm while being a user of illegal drugs, and lying about it on the 4473. If the law is for everyone, I think it’s… ahem high time.

Technically, he was indicted for the 4473 lie previously, but was going to be allowed to completely skate on the charge, with pre-trial diversion. Some of us wondered, if his name wasn’t “Biden,” whether he would have faced more serious penalties. But this being 21st century America, Dimwitocrats have turned that around now.

Dem Rep. Goldman: ‘Two-Tiered Justice System’ Indicting Hunter for Seemingly Violating Gun Laws Because He’s a Biden
Goldman said, “Well, look, it is a crime that, in my ten years as a federal prosecutor I have never heard of being charged.

Really? Never? Not even just a few months ago?

Legal experts say the charges against Hunter Biden are rarely brought

Define rarely. These folks might be surprised to hear that. So would the ATF.

I found all those recent (post Hunter’s little possession adventure) cases in about two minutes with a single web search.

And, as states decriminalize majijuana use, that federal firearm prohibition is of concern to users, who seem to be a bit more aware of the issue than is Rep. Goldman.

However, given prosecutor Weiss’ eagerness to let Hunter Biden off, I wonder if he isn’t clued in a little better, legally speaking. Earlier this year, in US v. Harrison, a judge ruled this restriction on unlawful drug users’ possession of firearms to be unconstitutional, having applied the BRUEN precedent of general, historical legal tradition.

My guess is that Crackhunter will make that same argument, and Weiss will decline to challenge it. The possession charge, at least, goes away. Weiss declines to appeal. Hunter walks.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail