Category Archives: Constitution

A Time for Choosing

I watch with shock, horror, trepidation, and anger at how fast my beloved country is becoming 1930s Germany. For those that wondered how they would have been, how they would have acted, how they would have chosen, what their character would have been? Yeah, well, I think we’re going to be finding out.
Harassment of Jews, with pending property damage? Check.

The sad irony of the October 7th massacre is that the denizens of Gaza attacked probably the most liberal part of Israel. They killed and raped the people who felt the most compassion for them, who marched for them, who hired them, who drove them to hospitals in Israel.
For example, this is Vivian Silver.

The late Vivian Silver
HY”D

The body of Canadian-Israeli Vivian Silver, one of the victims of the October 7th massacre was found.

Vivian (74) was an Israeli peace activist and leader of Women Waging Peace.

She spent years driving Gazans in need of medical care to Israeli hospitals.

They showed up on October 7th and thanked her their way – massacre!

Kfar Aza and Be’eri were made up of secular leftist peacenik types. They truly believed they could be friends and co-exist with the denizens of Gaza. So when it came time for the attack here’s how that works out in real life. The nice Gazans they had employed and paid good wages, that they had eaten meals with in their homes repaid their kindness in typical faux falestinian fashion. They had scoped out the Kibbutzim very well. They knew where the men lived, they knew who if any had guns and often where they were kept. They knew how many women and children, where they usually were, who had safe rooms and where. They then passed this intelligence onto the hamanazis.

Like the Jews of Germany that thought they were living peacefully with their neighbors for years, like the Jews living peacefully in 1929 Hevron with their Arab neighbors for years. Until one day they weren’t. Their peaceful neighbors turned into a deranged mob intent on torturing and killing one and all.

This man is a Muslim Arab Israeli who works for ZAKA, what he has to say is worth hearing.

A friend of mine told me there were a couple of religious observant Kibbutzim in the area. They lock their gates on Friday night at the start of Shabbat. They were spared, it seems the terrorists didn’t want to mess with fighting to get into some place when it was easier to go to those they knew would be lax. I’m not casting aspersions, I’m just marveling at small miracles any were spared.
And one of the questions many of us have struggled with is how could this happen?? How could Israel be so caught off guard. Well, short answer is it wasn’t, exactly. You know all those leftists in charge of our military? The ones doing drag queen story hour, and saying they would call China if our former President had been preparing to take action against them? Well, Israel has those kind as well. Caroline Glick is usually very solid. This has some of the answers, but its very painful and a bit of a warning to us as Obiden’s illegal invaders continue to stream across our border.

I’ve gotten the following information from more than one source, and it seems to line up pretty consistently.

Some of the horrors Israeli hostages experienced at the hands of Hamas in Gaza:

*Executed in captivity.

*Denied medical treatment.

*Starvation.

*Women kept in cages.

*Some forced to eat toilet paper.

*Sleep deprivation.

*Forced to watch Oct 7 atrocities.

*Separation from families.

*Children branded with exhaust pipes in case of escape.

*Beatings.

*Deprived of daylight.

*Solitary confinement.

*Elderly women forced to sleep on plastic chairs.

*Children forced to whisper, not allowed to cry.

*Denied basic hygiene.

*Confined to cramped spaces.

*No idea if their families survived.

*Forced to participate in degrading propaganda videos.

*Not a single visit from the Red Cross.

NEVER donate money to the Red Cross. Not only do they have a horrid history going back to WWII, while they certify the hamanazi ambulance service Red Crescent which is used to transport and hide terrorists, they refuse to certify Israel’s Magan David Adom ambulance service. In addition to which in this case the Red Cross did not demand of the hamanazis to be allowed to visit the hostages, and when asked by the family of an elderly hostage to take her medicine (which they had brought with them) to her in captivity, they refused. Yep, the Red Cross refused to take provided medication to an elderly hostage. NEVER give money to the Red Cross.

And this is just what we know about!Prof. Itai Pesach, head of children’s hospital at Sheba, said “When the children will start telling their stories, none of us will be able to sleep at night”.

Eitan was a Hamas hostage. He is 12 years old.

Eitan was brutally beaten on the day he was kidnapped by crowds of “innocent” civilians as he was brought from Israel into Gaza.

He was bullied by Palestinian boys under the instructions of a male teacher.

In captivity, he was forced to watch horrific videos of the massacre and torture of people he knew by the terrorists from October 7th.

He also said that the terrorists threatened them with weapons when the kidnapped Israeli children were crying.

When the Hamanazis said they didn’t know where all the hostages were they may have been telling the truth. Because the “innocent denizens of Gaza” were very actively involved in the kidnapping, torture and murder of the kidnapped Israelis. They also were holding some of them in private homes. Including a UNRWA teacher who held a captive in his attic for around 50 days basically starving the captive. Another Israeli was held captive by a Falestinian “doctor”. Yeah he is suppose to be a real doctor but apparently the Hippocratic oath hasn’t been translated into Falestinian.

This is the truth about Hamas, this is the high moral imperative of the Palestinian majority.

To torment and kill Israelis and Jews. This opinion poll was done around October 7th.

A Falestinian opinion poll

Be sure that Arab leaders are not as enthusiastic about a Palestinian state solution as the US administration does. Why? They have their past to lean on –

In the early 1950s, the Palestinian leadership collaborated with the Muslim Brotherhood, terrorizing Egypt, their host country.

In the mid-1960s, the Palestinian leadership terrorized Syria, their host country.

In 1968-70, the Palestinian leadership triggered a civil war in Jordan, attempting to topple their host Hashemite regime.

In 1970-82, the Palestinian leadership instigated a series of civil wars in Lebanon, aiming to take over their host country.

In 1990, the Palestinian leadership collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s invasion and plunder of Kuwait, which was for decades the most generous Arab host of 400,000 Palestinians.

From 1939, about nine years before the declaration by Israel of statehood,

Nobody wants these flotsom of human kind including other Arab nations which share a language and religion with them. This is Saudi author and media personality Rawaf al-Saeen. It has English subtitles and is pretty enlightening coming from the Arabic side.

Also weighing in for “news sources” that use the information given to them by the falestinian health ministry, is Amjad Taha, Arabic journalist, a real one. As opposed to cnn, msnbc and NYT. You see the falestinian health ministry is hamass. It’s run by hamass and is hamass. If they’re willing to behead babies, they’re willing to lie to a gullible western media and populace about how many are dead and how they got that way.

Taha

And some of the Western Media is very very stupid. Kudos to Elyon Levy.

Knesset member Avigdor Lieberman: There are no innocents in Gaza, he’s not exactly a religiously observant Jew.

There are no innocents in Gaza.

For years, good people with good intentions and it’s safe to say naive, believed in and promoted the idea of peace between us and the Palestinians. People who believed with all their hearts in the idea of two states and thought that normal people who dream the same dream live in Gaza.

A dream that shattered into pieces on October 7, 2023.

After recovering from the initial shock of the terrible massacre and with the revelation of the evidence of the atrocities committed by the Nazi terrorists, there is no shadow of a doubt that those who took part in the attack on the Gaza Strip, provided the intelligence on the homes of the residents and led the mob in the second wave of looting and destruction, were Gazans who worked in the settlements they invaded. They made a living and ate in the homes of the massacred residents, those residents who helped them and their families when they were sick and took care of transporting them from Gaza to Israel for life-saving treatments in hospitals in Israel.

The late Vivian Silver, from Kibbutz Be’eri, was one of those people who worked for peace and for the people of Gaza. She established aid programs for Gazans, made sure the workers were paid fair wages, transported the sick to hospital treatment and a few days before the massacre organized a peace rally in Jerusalem where Israeli women marched alongside women. On the Black Saturday, she was murdered with terrible cruelty by the very people she had worked for over the years, and none of the residents of Gaza condemned the murder or expressed shock.

Some will say that the residents of Gaza are afraid of Hamas and that is why we have not heard any condemnation from them, but the scenes we are witnessing in the last few days every evening when our abductees are transferred to the Red Cross and the testimonies of those who have returned from captivity, leave no room for doubt.

Hamas receives overwhelming support in Gaza.

The enraged crowd that insults and spits on the abductees, our small children who say they were beaten by Gazans of all ages and the demonstrations of joy and support for terrorists throughout Gaza, testify to the cruelty of the population that educates its children to hate the State of Israel and trains a new generation of terrorists and supporters of terrorism whose goal is the destruction of the State of Israel for all its citizens.

Gaza is a wasp’s nest of terrorists.

There is complete synchronization between Hamas and “innocent” citizens and the story of Roni Kariboy, who was kidnapped from the music festival by the bad guys, illustrates this. Roni managed to escape from captivity and hide for a few days, until Gazans caught him and returned him to his captors.

This is probably the reason why the terrorists marked the legs of the kidnapped children with the exhaust pipe of a motorcycle in order to make it easy to identify them in case they escape.

Another evidence of the full cooperation of the population can be found in the corridors of Shifa Hospital, where the hospital director and other senior doctors helped the terrorists hide hostages and turned the hospital into a haven for terrorists. But it’s not only in hospitals that you find collaborators, also in private homes of UNRWA medical professionals and teachers where hostages were held in terrible conditions.

These things are also reflected in social networks, in the Arab world and in Gaza. 99.9% of all publications are words of praise and wall-to-wall support for Hamas and the horrible acts of October 7th.

Now someone show me where innocent people who are not involved in terrorism are hiding in the Gaza Strip.

Why I am not moved emotionally by Gazan deaths

Stop worrying about Gazan civilians

Might there be guidance from the Torah about how such things should be handled? Why, yes indeed. In last weeks Parsha as a matter of fact!

Fifth Reading 34:1 Dinah was the daughter of Leah, whom Leah had borne to Jacob.46 Dinah was Leah’s daughter not only in the biological sense but also in the moral sense: she inherited her mother’s willingness to venture out of the safety of her tent47 for holy and righteous purposes. Confident in her ability to positively influence others—even though she was no more than a girl of ten at the time—she went out to observe the girls of that region in order to convince them to adopt the righteous ways of her family.

2 But Shechem, son of Chamor the Hivite, who was the chief of the region, saw her, took her, raped her, and abused her carnally in other ways, as well.

3 Despite himself, he was strongly drawn to Jacob’s daughter Dinah; he loved the girl, and spoke to the girl in a way he hoped would win over her heart, saying, “Look how many ornate coins your father expended just to purchase a small parcel of land.49 If you marry me, the whole city and its environs will effortlessly and automatically belong to you.”

4 Shechem spoke to his father, Chamor, as follows: “Get me this young girl as a wife.”

5 Now Jacob heard that Shechem had defiled his daughter Dinah. His sons were in the field with his livestock, so Jacob held his peace until they came.

6 Meanwhile, Shechem’s father, Chamor, went out to Jacob to speak with him.

7 Jacob’s sons returned from the field when they heard what Shechem had done to Dinah. The men, her brothers, became aggrieved and were deeply incensed, for Shechem had committed an outrage to their father Israel by raping their sister, Jacob’s daughter. Such a thing was considered socially and legally taboo ever since humanity had collectively foresworn illicit carnal relations in the wake of the Flood50 and made such acts a capital offense. Thus, Shechem’s act made him liable to the death penalty. The other residents of the city were implicated in his offense as well, for not having voiced their protest.51

8 Chamor spoke with them, saying, “My son Shechem deeply desires your daughter. I implore you, give her to him in marriage

9 and intermarry with us: give us your daughters, and take our daughters for yourselves. These marriages between our two peoples shall take place at your sole discretion: you may decide to which of our men you will give your daughters, as well as which of our daughters you will take for your men.

10 You shall live among us, and the land will be open before you; you may settle it, trade in it, and acquire holdings in it.”

11 Then Shechem said to her father and brothers, “Let me find favor in your eyes, and whatever you tell me to give as a dowry, I will give.

12 Go ahead, demand of me an exceedingly high figure for the dowry you will stipulate in the bridal contract, and for gifts, and I will give as much as you tell me; just give me this girl as a wife!”

13 When Jacob’s sons replied to Shechem and his father, Chamor, they spoke cunningly, for he had defiled their sister Dinah.

14 They told them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to an uncircumcised man, for that would be considered a disgrace to us. In fact, when one of our people wishes to insult someone, he calls him ‘uncircumcised’ or ‘the son of an uncircumcised father.’

15 Therefore, will we give our assent only on this condition: that you be like us in that every male among you be circumcised.

16 We will then intermarry with you as you have proposed, i.e., at our sole discretion: We will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves, and we will live together with you and become a single nation.

17 But if you do not heed us and circumcise yourselves, we will take our daughter and depart.”

18 Their terms were acceptable to Chamor and to Shechem, Chamor’s son.

19 The young man did not delay in carrying out this thing, since he desired Jacob’s daughter, and he was the most respected person in his father’s household.

20 Chamor then came with his son Shechem to the gate of their city, and they spoke to the men of their city as follows:

21 “These men are fully at peace with us. Let them live in the land and trade in it, for the land has ample room for them. Supply in our land exceeds demand, so letting them live here and trade in the land will not adversely affect our economy.” When Chamor and Shechem had proposed intermarriage between the two peoples to Jacob and his sons, they phrased their proposal to Jacob’s family’s advantage, allowing them to select Hivite men for their daughters and take whatever Hivite girls they wished for wives. In contrast, when they now set the proposal of intermarriage before their compatriots, they altered the wording to their compatriot’s advantage in order to induce them to consent to be circumcised: “We will take their daughters as wives, and we will give our daughters to them, both at our discretion.

22 But only on this condition will these men consent to live with us and become one nation: that every male among us be circumcised, just as they are circumcised.

23 After all, when they will dwell among us, their livestock, their possessions, and all their animals will become ours. Let us just agree to their condition and they will live among us.”

24 All the people who came out to the gate of Chamor’s city heeded Chamor and his son Shechem, and all the males who passed through the gate of his city had themselves circumcised.

25 On the third day after their circumcision, when the Hivites were in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, each took up his sword. They acted as Dinah’s loyal brothers, risking their lives for her sake, but without first consulting their father. They fell upon the city, confident in their ability to overcome the men—firstly, because of the Hivites’ weakness and pain due to the circumcision, and secondly, in the merit of their father Jacob—and killed every male.

26 They also killed Chamor and his son Shechem by the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem’s house and left. When they went to rescue Dinah, they found her agonizing in embarrassment over what had been done to her and afraid that, consequentially, no one would want to marry her; Simeon therefore promised that he would marry her, and it was only on this condition that she consented to be rescued.52

When the two brothers attacked the city of Shechem, Jacob took up his sword and bow and stood at the entrance to the city in readiness to protect his sons if any of its allies would come to side with its inhabitants.53

27 Jacob’s sons came to strip the slain of their possessions, and they plundered the city that had defiled their sister.

28 They took the Hivites’ flocks, cattle, donkeys, and whatever else was in the city and the field.

29 They seized all their money and captured all their children and womenfolk, and plundered everything in the houses.

A couple of thoughts, Dinah was TEN, TEN years old when Shechem raped her. I was attempting to explain why the actions of Simeon and Levi were responsible and reasonable. The whole town did nothing to stop the depraved Shechem from brutalizing the child, and after he did so they did nothing to confront him. So will the town continue to behave in such a manner? Yes. Of course.

I thought Lenny Goldberg had a great (if short) show on this very topic this week.

Part of the problem is people look at this situation and actions through the mind set of the mid-west. The middle East is not the mid-west.

Some of the terrorists Israel has released are again calling for the murder of innocent Israeli civilians. Already.

And the hamanazis are saying they intend to repeat October 7th.

Hamas official says group aims to repeat Oct. 7 onslaught many times to destroy Israel

And this is the next generation of “innocent Gazans”

We were warned.

Understand this, our country has become so depraved that when those in charge of 3 major schools of higher learning refused to say that calling for the murder of Jews is a violation of their school’s policies you know where we’re at. The best they could manage was if the terrorists actions crossed over from calling for genocide into actually committing genocide then that might maybe be a violation of their schools policies. Situation dependent you understand, of course.

There are many many people stacked against what used to be normalcy and decency. But there are some interesting solutions. I do love this short video.

This woman in Israel is known for cheerleading and supporting Hamas. She got the shock of her life when the Israeli police informed her in person that she would be relocated to Gaza—the ultimate fan experience, right at the heart of the action, the headquarters of Hamas! Israeli Arabs enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, even higher than other Arabic countries usually. But this woman just loves and supports the Hamanazis, and hasn’t been shy about telling everyone. So, Israel is shipping her to Gaza!! What a fabulous idea!! Look at her excitement and the look of pure joy on her face!! They’ve made her dream come true. I’d like to suggest we begin to do the same to some college students and the presidents of Harvaaaaard, MIT and Penn. I’m sure they’d love it!! T

Hanukkah starts tonight. It’s different from some of the other wars, most of them have been like what the current demoncrat party is waging. A fight against a mob and death. <humor alert>

Jewish Family Celebrates Hanukkah 2023 In Neighbor’s Attic

Hanukkah in contrast, the Greeks didn’t care if the people lived, but they wanted to kill the religion and practice of Judaism. Sort of like the Obiden White House.

Jews Advised To Protect Themselves From Violence By Not Being Jewish

“It’s a simple solution,” said historic White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who is gay and black. “We have seen a sharp rise in antisemitic behavior, so our best advice to Jewish people in fear for their lives is to stop doing Jewy things and consider not being Jewish altogether.”

If you’re like me, you wonder why? Why is this happening. I really liked the explanation in this short video. It is apparent, the time is upon us, the time for choosing. What kind of people will we be? What kind of people are we? What will we contribute to society, our country and our world?Will we seek out and find why G-d wants us here at this time in this place? All questions for each of us to answer.

And with that, I will wish you all a very safe, joyous and meaningful Hanukkah!

חג חנוכה שמח

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

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

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

A Mass Shooting Solution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

NM: Governor Stalin Sending In The Thug Enforcers

Well, assuming she can find any State Police officers stupid enough to sign those citations and serve them.

Gov’s office promises State Police will enforce gun ban
Even without that physical presence, the governor’s office intends to act.

“The order is being enforced, and citations will be forthcoming from the State Police,” said Caroline Sweeny, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham’s office. ”To ensure officer safety, we will not be providing additional details at this time.”

Multiple people were live streaming the event in Old Town which turned into an open-mic lasting several hours for anyone in attendance, mostly armed with at least one weapon, to share feelings, concerns and possible threats in reaction to the order.

It appears Grisham expects the Staties to identifying “offenders” from video, and cite them for violating her unconstitutional diktat. Reportedly the Albuquerque police did have a surveillance “device” set up for the even, as they seemingly often do. But given the police chief’s opposition to the ban order, it seems doubtful that he’d assist them by providing video or still shots.

But several people live-streamed the event, so the governor may just pull that off the Internet. It wouldn’t surprise me if she tries geofencing the protest; but that leaves her with proving that a particular cell phone was carried by an armed person.

Next, she has to find someone willing to put his name on the citations, and open himself up to the expected 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights and 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law.

Finally, she needs a bunch of Staties brave and stupid enough to serve the unconstitutional citations on armed citizens.18 U.S. Code § 241 and 18 U.S. Code § 242, again.

Will the State Police do this? While the Bernalillo sheriff, Albuquerque police chief, and district attorney were quick to weigh in negatively, I’ve seen nothing as yet from the State Police.

The State Police web site is notably devoid of any contact data other than a physical address and a post office box; no telephone numbers, email addresses, or contact form (other than a way to compliment them). I finally located a contact form for the Department of Public Safety, under which the SP falls.

I sent this a few minutes ago.

Good day,

I am a firearms policy and law analyst for The Zelman Partisans. I have a few questions regarding enforcement of Governor Grisham’s and Secretary Allen’s action in banning public possession of firearms.

Given that the Albuquerque police chief, Bernalillo County sheriff, and the Albuquerque district attorney have all announced that they will not enforce the unconstitutional edict, is the New Mexico State Police going to enforce it, as Grisham has claimed?

Has the State Police considered the Second Amendment implication in light of the BRUEN decision test of general, historical legal tradition?

Has the State Police consider the ramifications of the NM state constitution, Sections 4 and 6?

If the State Police choose to enforce this, what action will you take against any officers who refuse to participate and open themselves up to 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights and 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law charges?

Given that at least three groups have already filed lawsuits (NAGR, GOA, and FPC, I believe), are you willing to be added to the lawsuits?

Are individual State Police officers willing to be added to the lawsuits?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your replies.

I’ll update if I receive a useful reply.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail