That’s only at the federal level, Escobar. I suppose it’ll come as a shock to your tiny, ill-informed — yet somehow still legislating — pseudo-mind that every state, territory, federal district, civilian and military installation has their own additional.
Individual counties, cities, and towns pile on their own laws and regulations.
I think we may have just a few regulations on guns.
If you wish to contact Dimwit Escobar, to explain the statutory and regulatory facts of life to, you can contact her office HERE. Be aware that Escobar is one of those tyrannical types who likes to vote on national legislation, but is grossly afraid of national feedback. Her contact form requires you to enter a ZIP+4 within her district to pass “Go.”
79901-1443 should work, for those of you affected by her idiocy but not resident in her district.
Have fun.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Buffalo shooting: Extreme risk protection orders could help stop Ohio mass killings| Rogers
There is a statutory remedy that can authorize preventive actions against warned mass shootings: extreme risk protection order laws. They allow law enforcement and sometimes family members to petition a court for an emergency order to deprive the dangerous individual of access to guns.
“Red flag” laws. Everyone’s — especially this alleged Yale graduate, past attorney, and adjunct law professor — favorite due process deprivation to stop something that might happen, maybe, sometime.
But at least Douglas Rogers tries to back up his claim with case law.
Sort of. Specifically…
There is no legal prohibition against extreme risk protection orders.
The Supreme Court “has recognized, on many occasions, that where a state must act quickly, or where it would be impractical to provide pre-deprivation process, post-deprivation process satisfies the requirements of the Due Process Clause.
That sounds definite, eh? Take a closer look. Rogers didn’t actually cite the case from which he’s quoting, but it didn’t take much of a search to find that language in Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997). SCOTUS found:
In the circumstances here, the State did not violate due process by failing to provide notice and a hearing before suspending a tenured public employee without pay. Pp. 928-936.
Wait. Suspension without pay is on an equal level with confiscation of property (firearms)?
Look at some facts of the case:
“respondent was arrested by state police and charged with a drug felony.”
Sufficient evidence to support probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed.
“Petitioners, ESU officials, suspended him without pay, effective immediately, pending their own investigation.”
Suspended without pay. Not fired, not fined. Based on a probable cause arrest.
Compare that to the typical “red flag” “extreme risk” order”
A complaint that someone might pose a threat in the future. Not an allegation that a crime had been committed.
Property, in the form of firearms, is taken.
As the Court noted, suspension without pay based on a probable cause arrest was a temporary inconvenience; no money was taken, just new payments suspended (for a period when the respondent wouldn’t be working to earn that pay).
A red flag confiscation order, based on a a wild guess rather than a committed crime, results in the taking of property. More specifically, it’s the taking of constitutionally-protected — Second Amendment — property, without due process.
I’m seeing some significant differences between the scenarios, Rogers. Perhaps a better SCOTUS citation on the actual taking of property would be Truax v. Corrigan (1921);
“The due process clause requires that every man shall have the protection of his day in court, and the benefit of the general law, a law which hears before it condemns” […] “a law which operates to make lawful such a wrong as is described in plaintiff’s complaint deprives the owner of the business and the premises of his property without due process and cannot be held valid”. (emphasis added)
Hearing first, then taking.
I fear for the clients of attorneys taught by this former adjunct law professor.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
He thinks it’s a problem with those lawfully carrying firearms.
If you are allowing people to carry guns, the good guys are no longer able to be distinguished from the bad guys because if you have a bad day, and you have a gun, that bad day can elevate to an argument.
There’s a tendency that people believe if they got a gun, ‘Why have it, if I’m not using it?’ That’s just the mindset of carrying a gun.
The problem here isn’t honest folks carrying guns. It’s Mayor Adams,
Adams believes that carrying a gun for defense means you’re suddenly going to snap, to start shooting because you’re having a bad day.
Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.
Here’s a reality check, Mayor; cash it:
Those people who go to the trouble of lawfully carrying a firearm for defense rarely “snap.” Based on personal experience, conversations with other carriers, reading, and firearms classes, the opposite is the case.
We aren’t carrying because we hope to kill someone. If I can make it through my life without ever having to do that, I’d be happy.
Because we know from education and training that actually firing a gun anywhere but a range, or hunting, can bring down a load of legal and moral pain, we are more likely to attempt to deescalate a situation, rather than default to Kill ’em all; let G-d sort ’em out.
We carry defensively because we value life, even that of a scumbag… up to the point that such a creature forces us to prioritize one life over his.
I’ve been carrying firearms, professionally and personally, for over forty years. Not once have I ever thought He’s annoying me. I have a gun. Why not just put the bastard out of my misery?
I have been in situations where the thought Oh please don’t make me draw has gone through my mind.
But Mayor Adams seems incapable of that mindset, or even granting that someone else might have that I-don’t-want-to-shoot-anyone mindset.
That appears to leave Adams with the Oh, g-d; I’m gonna kill someone mindset. He knows it, and assumes everyone else is like himself.
On an intellectual level, I’m curious as to how he can live with that sort of self-loathing. But, really, I don’t want those sort of destructive — of self and others — thoughts in my head.
I suppose this is why people like Adams can support no-due process “red flag” laws, and other forms of victim disarmament. They know damned well that they themselves should probably be red-flagged and disarmed. For cause.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
And this is just one of the many reasons why. I keep seeing crap about the Buffalo shooter illegally “modifying” his Bushmaster XM-15 rifle (when some dumbass isn’t calling it an “AR-15” which happens to be a Colt trademark). Case in point:
Buffalo shooting suspect learned to modify his gun on YouTube. The videos are still online.
The 18-year-old suspected of targeting and fatally shooting 10 Black people in Buffalo, New York, wrote in what are believed to be his online journals that he learned how to illegally modify his rifle by watching YouTube videos. The suspect appeared to link to the videos in Discord chat logs, and the videos were still available on YouTube as of Thursday evening — five days after the shooting.
The advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund called on YouTube to remove these videos, saying that they violate YouTube’s community guidelines banning videos that show how to install gun accessories like high-capacity magazines.
Since thus far the only “modification” I’ve heard about is that he had 10+ round magazines, I was very curious as to exactly how he “modified” the rifle. What do the supergeniuses at Everytown say?
Based on a review of the shooter’s writings and public news reports about the weapon used in the shooting, the shooter may have watched this video to equip his Bushmaster rifle with an Anderson Manufacturing magazine release after removing the Mean Arms MA Lock in violation of New York’s assault weapons regulations.
Ah. So Everytown believes the chumbucketmight have removed the magazine lock and installed a conventional magazine catch so that he could swap out magazines in a normal manner.
I’ll pause for a moment, to see if you can spot the problem with that. It’s possible you won’t, if you live in neither New York… nor California.
All “assault weapons” are not created equal. Except in a few jurisdictions that have defined the term in law, it’s meaningless. For instance, In Georgia there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.”
In California, the powers-that-be decided that you should not be able to swap magazines normally. There, an AR-pattern rifle must be equipped with a magazine lock that makes normal operation impossible. So if the Buffalo, New York scumbag wanted to travel to California, purchase a California-compliant rifle, and modify it to allow normal mag swaps, he might want to remove an MA Lock and replace it with an AA mag release.
But New York does not ban mag releases, as California does (I’m open to correction, if someone can find such a restriction in the law). They just say you can’t insert a magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
So the Buffalo bastard would have zero reason to “modify” his rifle by removing a feature not there in the first place, and replacing it with a feature it already has.
The Everytown dimwits assumed that As California Goes, So Goes the Country. If California requires something then surely every other state must do the same, right?
Nope.
It is possible that the Bushmaster the shooter purchased was California compliant as well as New York compliant. The manufacturer/distributor could have simplified production by combining the worst of both states, just so they wouldn’t have complicate their production lines with two products, each with limited appeal. To date, I have not seen a picture of the specific firearm used; I don’t know if it was dual-compliant.
But that doesn’t make the Cal-required mag lock the law in New York. In NY, installing a normal mag release would not be an “illegal modification.”
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
“At this point, in this closely-divided Congress, do you see any appetite right now to take up, once again, the idea of an assault weapons ban in this country?”
The question was clearly a pre-planned softball for the half-witted Dim. The scumbag reportedly used a NY SAFE Act-compliant Bushmaster XM-15 rifle; a non-“assault weapon.”
The ditz still flubbed it.
We need to do something about making sure that bad guys don’t get their hands on handguns.
The context was the Buffalo shooting. He did not use a handgun; it was a NY SAFE Act-compliant Bushmaster XM-15 rifle.
And we need to make sure that these assault and automatic weapons don’t get in the hands of bad guy
One more time, moron: It was not an “assault weapon.” It was not an automatic weapon (something even NY Gov. Hochul could figure out).
And now we enter the Twilight Zone. Picking up where she left off…
And we need to make sure that these assault and automatic weapons don’t get in the hands of bad guys, and sometimes, bad women. Because, again, I’ve been rabbit hunting.
-blink- Um, what? Let’s simplify that.
We need to get guns out of the hands of bad women because I’ve been rabbit hunting.
Aaaall righty, then.
So now I come to the questions I think Garcia should answer.
1. Are you on drugs?
Because you sound like you’re on drugs. And not prescription goodies. On the other hand…
2. If you are not on drugs, should you be? (The prescription sort, this time.)
3. If neither recreational nor prescription pharmaceuticals were involved, is your stupidity natural or the result of an accident?
I could add a fourth question prompted by this:
Handguns, in my view, are not for hunting. They’re not for protection. I think handguns are, frankly, for killing people.
Oddly enough, I have never killed anyone with a handgun. I even bought one large-bore handgun specifically for hunting. I have used a handgun for defense. So…
4. Are my non-killing handguns defective, and should I demand refunds?
The first three questions were submitted to Garcia’s office. They did not respond to multiple emails.
Go figure.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
As you may, or not, have heard, the JoBama crime regime is on the verge of handing over U.S. sovereignty to the W.H.O. You know, I always figured it would be the U.N. that would be the issue, and I do believe they will play a role as the W.H.O.’s enforcers, but it will be the corrupt W.H.O. with their oligarch benefactors that will be running the show.
It seems when the elections of 2020 were corrupted by the demoncrats and their allies in the corporate media and technology, a series of planned events began like the falling of a domino. See the movie 2000 Mules for evidence on this one. Dinesh D’Souza, doing the job American “journalists” , cough cough, choke choke, won’t do.
These regulations are a “binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.”3 U.N. members states can be required by law to obey or acquiesce to them.
There are many groups and people that believe the Covid-19 flu was timed and/or engineered to affect our elections. This group has a lot of good information on their web site to back up the claim, and a video. Members are doctors, lawyers, and others who have been fighting the use of covid to seize freedom from citizens of every country. https://stopworldcontrol.com/. You must admit, ordering all those covid-19 test kits a year or two ahead of the actual pandemic is amazing. Apparently, Miss Cleo is back in biz. So, there is a domino. If you just want to see the video they’ve put together giving evidence on why they believe the pandemic was planned, that’s here.
On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America’s healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization’s governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).
This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as “Provisional agenda item 16.2” at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022.1
These amendments will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations.
If passed, the Biden Administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States. The same threat looms over all the U.N.’s 193 member nations, all of whom belong to WHO and represent 99.44% of the world population.2
These regulations are a “binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.”3 U.N. members states can be required by law to obey or acquiesce to them.
….
Although sponsored by an American administration, WHO’s most significant use of this arbitrary authority to declare national emergencies will be used against the United States if our government ever again dares to take anti-globalist stands as it did under the Trump administration.
Because this treaty was originally signed in 2007, I don’t believe this needs to go through the approval process again. This is “just” amendments from the JoBama crime regime. And another domino bites the dust.
Here’s a bit about those amendments from Leo Hohmann:
According to the WHO’s website, on March 30, 2021, 25 world leaders announced an “urgent call for an International Pandemic Treaty,” stating that such a treaty is needed to orchestrate a single globalized response to pandemics. These “25 heads of government and international leaders” have come together in a joint call to form the treaty.
Don’t forget that Yuval Noah Harari, the chief advisor to Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, has stated that globalist elites will use “crises” to bring about world government.
“Catastrophe opens the door” to massive changes that people would otherwise never accept, Harari said.
But even more pressing than the treaty itself right now, is something almost no one is paying attention to in U.S. political, religious or media circles, and that involves a set of amendments that will amend an existing treaty, the International Health Regulations. The U.S. government has submitted amendments to 13 articles within those regulations, which are administered by the WHO, and these amendments are seen by many as sovereignty killers.
A UN report from May 2021 called for more powers for the WHO stating that, “In its current form, the WHO does not possess such powers […]To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.“
The WHO will be hosting its annual meeting, the 75th World Health Assembly, May 22-28 in Geneva, Switzerland, attended by delegates from at least 194 nations. It is during this Assembly that members will be voting on the amendments that will hand over additional sovereignty, control and legal authority to the World Health Organization. The WHO, if these amendments are approved, will obtain the authority to declare an international health emergency, overriding national governments.
Now one might think, why on earth would the President of the United States, leader of the free nation, want to turn over sovereignty of the country to an un-elected bunch of bureaucrats that haven’t been correct about much of anything about covid-19. Why, this would leave his citizens no recourse to whatever tyranny the corrupt Tedros (owned and installed by China, much as JoBama was) decided to force on them?
But you get to go to heaven!
No word yet if Vladimir Putin will be handing over Russian sovereignty to a globalist cabal or not. But gosh, I guess if he didn’t, it would be like the whole world (almost) would be united against Russia. But, you wouldn’t think the whole world would unite against one nation just because they made a different choice. A choice they felt was in the best interest of their citizens, their families, would you? Seems a horrible way to thank Putin for curing covid, right? And one day after I write this, we know the answer Russia Moves To Withdraw From WTO, WHO
Yeah, at this point I’d believe it. I mean look at how people treated those that for some reason or another chose not to take the experimental gene therapy injections? This is just on a far grander scale. Fellow write Y.B. Ben Avraham sent me a fascinating article. Letter to the Menticided: A 12-Step Recovery Program
“Menticide is an old crime against the human mind and spirit but systematized anew. It is an organized system of psychological intervention and judicial perversion through which a powerful dictator can imprint his own opportunistic thoughts upon the minds of those he plans to use and destroy.”
* * *
“Ready made opinions can be distributed day by day through press, radio, and so on, again and again, till they reach the nerve cell and implant a fixed pattern of thought in the brain. Consequently, guided public opinion is the result, according to Pavlovian theoreticians, of good propaganda technique, and the polls a verification of the temporary successful action of the Pavlovian machinations on the mind.”
~~Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind
The whole thing is well worth reading, but one of the videos embedded explains so well why I believe that many people in the U.S. will go along with this treaty, beg for it, just like they do to have experimental injections put into their innocent children as they sacrifice them on the alter of the Golden Fauxci Molech.
We aren’t really dealing with evil people per se, but stupid ones. And they are more dangerous to us, U.S. After years of public education, corporate media, dumbed down entertainment and equity as opposed to equality in outcomes, this is what we are up against, the side against freedom and law abiding citizens.
Now, the politicians? They aren’t necessarily stupid, they are sadistic and power greedy. I enjoy war correspondent Michael Yon’s columns. His insight from what I’ve read and heard him say is pretty accurate. His take on the Biden crime regime? You are being too generous if you attribute this to incompetence. The Myth of “If Only He knew,” or “When he finds out this will end…”
It seems Dr. Martinson has come around to a paradigm more aligned with my own. This is not incompetence. They know what they are doing. This is war.
Old proverbs and sayings can be very useful branches, thought-shortcuts, to help just get to accurate answers quickly. But those same sayings can be traps. This is one reason it’s better to use a dumb Bloodhound while tracking men than to use a very smart Border Collie.
Firstly, the Bloodhound has a better nose — AND USES IT. The Bloodhound just follows the facts that its senses detect. Follows the evidence. Border Collies often follow their memories. Lassie (well, not a Border Collie) remembers the last man she found was in a ditch, and so Lassie runs around checking all the ditches. Lassie was last seen disappearing over the horizon checking a long ditch.
Lassie is using the equivalent shortcut of “never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.” And they look with those brilliant eyes barking, “See! I know the shortcut to wisdom!” Meanwhile, the dumb Bloundhound in the last hour found a missing child, tree’d a kidnapper, got on the trail of a female Bloodhound, and sired a new litter all while Lassie is still running down the ditches knowing she’s going to get that guy. Lassie tracks with her eyes and memory. Bloodhound tracks the available evidence and is equivalent to a weapon’s system.
The evidence is clear. We are under attack. When I say this, the Lassies typically say, “Never attribute to malice what can be found in a ditch.”
….
I am down here in Panama and can say with clarity that comes dry season in December/January when the Darien jungles are easier to cross when famine is ripping across Africa and many other places, we may see literally millions of people come through here and blow right across the US borders.
Baby formula? Lol. You can take the Haitians out of Haiti but some of these thugs will be taking homes by force.
The whole column is worth reading, really.
So the W.H.O. has the power to decide what and when a pandemic is, and can use the U.N. to enforce the nations to do what the W.H.O. says. So, like the CDC used to yammer on about an “epidemic of gun violence”, well then, that would be right up the W.H.O.’s ally wouldn’t it?
So, there is a petition you can sign, but this travesty starts in just a couple of days.
According to Dr. Tess Lawrie, there may be another chance to have input.
According to the WHO, the next round of written and video public participation in the pandemic treaty will take place on 16-17 June.
Have you ever wondered why the power crazy demoncrats haven’t backed off of any of their disastrous plans and policies that have hurt American citizens at every turn? I mean you hear Republicans talking about a “red wave” in the fall, and while it’s true Blacks and Hispanics are fleeing the power drunk dims, don’t you get the feeling there is a reason the dims aren’t backing off? It’s almost as though they think they don’t have to worry about “red waves”, fall or elections. They are just trying to get as many pieces in place as quickly as they can. Enough pieces that there is no coming back.
Whether there is a way or not, I do not know. I know that G-d determines outcomes, but there are very few fantastic achievements I’ve ever seen that didn’t require some amount of effort on the part of the person submitting those prayers. And I think lots and lots of prayers on in order. Because what it is, is tyranny on a scale we’ve never seen, and the last domino just dropped.
Traditionally, Dims have avoided gunpeople control bills when elections are coming. It’s a campaign killer (right, Duke Nukem?). Certainly the money is on the same thing being the case this cycle.
But if you have no intention of allowing fair and honest elections (again), what’s the harm in pushing a bill to license gun ownersregister all firearms and owners via a “may issue” federal licensing system?
Except as provided in subsection (d), it shall be unlawful for any individual to purchase or 5 receive a firearm unless the individual has a valid Federal 6 firearm license.
You would have to undergo training, written testing, and practical testing. Before you can apply for that license you may not be…granted.
No.
has submitted identifying information on the firearm that the person intends to obtain, including the make, model, and serial number, and the identity of the firearm seller or transferor;
If you’re buying from an FFL, you have to tie up his inventory for a potential sale that may not ever be allowed. Whomever you’re buying from, you have to register the firearm and current possessor… for a license that may never be granted.
No.
There are the usual disqualifications for a license, including, but not limited to, 18 U.S. Code § 922 restrictions. What else could disqualify you?
Ever being arrested. For almost anything. Not indicted or convicted. Arrested.
No.
Here’s another disqualifier.
any recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons;
Bought some steak knives for the kitchen? Sorry; deadly weapons. Ammo for another — licensed/registered — firearm? You’re screwed.
No.
Let’s say you managed to pay for the training and testing, found a dealer willing to tie up potentially unsellable inventory for a month or more, hadn’t bought any ammo or pocket knives recently (and what constitutes “recent” anyway; the bill doesn’t say), and got your cattle tag and a home defense gun.
The Attorney General shall revoke a license issued under this section if the Attorney General determines that—
(i) the licensee poses a significant danger of bodily injury to self or others by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm;
Huh. While the original issue sections specify some ways to determine that a would-be licensee is a threat to self or others, this revocation parts leaves all that out. It’s solely up to the AG’s “determination.”
And — by definition — you pose a significant threat merely by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm that you jumped through the licensing and registration hoops for. Obeying this law would be proof that you’re a threat.
No. Wait; not just no. That’s “H— f—— NO.” And fold that bill up until it’s all sharpy pointy corners, and shove it somewhere personally painful. Preferably in a place from which surgical removal would be necessary.
You probably heard that the Buffalo chumbucket is a right-wing white supremacist. From what I’ve heard, I’m willing to buy the white supremacist part, but right-wing?
“I would prefer to call myself a populist. But you can call me an ethno-nationalist eco-fascist national socialist if you want, I wouldn’t disagree with you.” He also repeatedly attacks capitalists, and rejected the conservative label because, he wrote, “conservativism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”
An eco-fascist national socialist? Doesn’t sound very right-wing.
Of course, reports have it that he used an evil AR-15 assault weapon.
The UK Independent reports on Sunday morning the New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) announced the gun was acquired legally.
ABC 7 indicated the attacker used a rifle which was purchased at a store in Broome County, New York.
A lawful, commercial purchase (not a private sale) in New York means the weapon was NY SAFE compliant; that is, not an assault weapon. Reports do claim he had noncompliant magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Interesting that some asshole was able to lawfully purchase that gun…
…considering that, as is becoming all too common, he was previously known to authorities. It seems that he threatened to kill people at his high school, and was “Baker Acted*” less than a year ago.
But no seems to have thought of using New York’s “red flag” law to supposedly keep him disarmed while he wandered the streets unsuperised. Thus, he could still lawfully purchase his murder weapon.
Where are we at?
Assault weapon ban didn’t work.
“High capacity” magazine ban didn’t work.
Red flag law didn’t work.
And since the red flag law didn’t work, neither did the point-of-sale NICS background check.
Clearly this calls for more gun control that won’t work. And maybe some more censorship laws… that won’t work either.
* Technically, “Baker Act” refers to the Florida law allowing people to be taken in for a mental health evaluation, but every state — including New York — has the equivalent. I find it helpful to use the general term “Baker Act” for them all.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
The big news in American human/civil rights today is JONES vs. BONTA, overturning the California ban on long guns for 10-20 year-olds.
To hear from a lot of “news” outlets this morning, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the ban. Most headlines read that way, and many even continue that into the reports themselves. A few correctly point out that the ruling came from a three judge panel of the Ninth, rather than the whole circuit. That’s pretty important, for reasons beyond the obvious option for appeal.
The good news is that the panel correctly applied strict scrutiny.
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.
The law in question broke down into two parts. One forbade any long guns to those 18-20yo unless they have a hunting license. Because the court found that it was not unnecessarily broad — allowing the hunting license exception — it used intermediate scrutiny on that part, and allowed it to stand.
The second part in question banned 18-20yos possessing semiautomatic centerfire rifles, hunting license or not. While the first part would allow those with hunting licenses to possess pump shotguns, single shot rifles, or bolt-actions, semiautomatics were right out; essentially with no exceptions (other than for police or military). Coupled with the existing prohibition on sales of any handgun to those under 21, this amounted to a near total revocation of Second Amendment rights for young adults. The panel found that to be overly broad under strict scrutiny.
Third, the district court erred by applying intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, to the semiautomatic centerfire rifle ban. Strict scrutiny applied because the law on its face banned almost all young adults from having semiautomatic rifles. The main difference between this ban and the long gun regulation was the exceptions. The long gun regulation has a readily available exception, at least on its face—young adults can get hunting licenses. The semiautomatic rifle ban has no such exception: the only young adults who can buy semiautomatic rifles are some law enforcement officers and active-duty military servicemembers. The panel held that California’s ban was a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of selfdefense in the home. Even applying intermediate scrutiny, the ban, prohibiting commerce in semiautomatic rifles for all young adults except those in the police or military, regulated more conduct than was necessary to achieve its goal and therefore failed the reasonable fit test.
As a matter of routine, when California loses a case at the panel level, it appeals to the Ninth en banc; the whole circuit. That is where things could get very interesting, thanks to Judge Stein’s dissent in this case.
Dissenting in part, Judge Stein stated that while the majority was correct to apply intermediate scrutiny to the long gun regulation to affirm the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, it erred in applying strict scrutiny to and reversing the district court with respect to the semiautomatic centerfire rifle regulation. On that basis, Judge Stein concurred with the majority’s holding and reasoning with respect to the long gun regulation and dissented from its holding and reasoning with respect to the semiautomatic rifle regulation. Judge Stein stated that by neglecting consideration of either the disproportionate perpetration of violent crime by, or the relatively immature and variable cognitive development among, adults under age 21, the majority opinion failed to conduct a legal analysis that comported with the corpus of precedent within this Circuit and elsewhere.
Oh. My. How will the en banc Ninth deal with Stein’s assertion that 18-20yos are too criminal and/or too mentally defective to enjoy enumerated rights, while struggling to reject the panel’s decision that they do have some rights?
If, as I expect, the Ninth takes up this case en banc the weasel-worded side-stepping around Stein’s dissent will be amazing. If they roll with Stein’s position, they open up several cans of worms.
Too immature to have a rifle? Too immature to vote.
Too immature to have a rifle? Too immature for free speech. (OK, they’ll probably like that one.)
Too immature to have a rifle? Too immature for an abortion.
Too immature to have a rifle? Too immature for a car.
Work your way throught the Bill of Rights and consider what else young adults might be to immature to enjoy.
If the Ninth decides intermediate scrutiny should be applied, and accepts Stein’s assertion that young adults are du jure criminals and mentally deficient, California’s red flag law could also come into play.
As bad as no-due process confiscations based on — even anonymous — accusations of potential future crime are, imagine red flag hearings based on Stein’s bizarre idea.
NOW: “Judge, Mr. Smith has been angry and acting erratically. Hid did this and this and this. He has guns. Please take them.”
STEIN’s FUTURE: “Judge, Mr. Smith is 18 and has a bolt-action hunting rifle. Please take it. No, he has not been angry or erratic, but under JONES v. BONTA, he’s a criminal and mentally deficient by default, by reason of age.”
That’ll go over well with younger voters. If they can still vote.
Previous age limits for firearms have survived intermediate scrutiny in the past because they’ve been somewhat narrowly tailored. Young adults were prohibited from purchasing handguns because those tend to be used more often in crimes than long guns. (That’s still a bit wide for my taste, and courts are beginning to agree with me.)
Outright bans for individuals — as opposed to entire demographic classes — were narrowly tailored because they required convictions of those specific individuals for serious crimes, or judicial findings of mental incompetence specific to those individuals.
Will the Ninth — like Stein — be willing to chuck that in favor of wholesale bans for entire demographic classes?
…disproportionate perpetration of violent crime by…
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
You might think that headline is the big news. Not really. We already know red flag laws don’t work.
The news here is that Garen Wintemute, the victim-disarmament advocate who previously couldn’t find data he could not twist, finally hit a brick wall. And worse.
Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law
VROs were not associated with reduced population-level rates of firearm violence in San Diego County, but this may change as the number of orders increases over time; the association between GVROs and firearm violence at the individual level cannot be inferred from our findings and should be the subject of future studies.
Wintemute is notable for crappy “studies” using bogus tools like synthetic controls (imaginary populations, because real populations wouldn’t support his predetermined “results”), tossing out most of the inconvenient data (because two-thirds of the subjects declined to kill themselves), and using personally identifiable data obtained through legally dubious means (so dubious that California tried to pass a bill to legalize it). He has also violated privacy rules with covert surveillance.
This paper was another example of a synthetic control; an artificial “San Diego.”
To estimate the association between GVRO implementation and firearm violence in San Diego, we used the synthetic control method, a quasi-experimental comparative case study design.
This was a particularly egregious example. To the extent that synthetic controls have any value, you build one by using data from populations (other California counties, in this case) with conditions and populations similar to the variable you wish to examine, except for the variable in question. That is, when studying the effects of a red flag law on a county, you would make up an imaginary comparison county from places that don’t have a red flag law.
All California counties were subject to the same statewide red flag law.
Properly, if you want to see the effects on San Diego County of the red flag law, you simply do a temporal analysis of per capita homicides and suicides in San Diego prior to law passage and after implementation. Wintemute didn’t need a synthetic San Diego to come to a conclusion; he already had real San Diegos without a red flag law (pre-2016) and with a red flag law (post-2016). You use a synthetic control when you don’t expect real world data to support your preculsion.
For example, one year after Florida passed a red flag law, homicides and suicides went up. That was especially nasty, because for two years prior to passage both rates had been declining.
Two years after the Florida law’s passage, and homicide and suicide rates were still increasing.
[Side Note: To anyone with an operational brain, this was… a no-brainer, so to speak. You have a potentially violent –to self or others — person. You piss him off, or depress him, off by stealing his property without due process. Then you simply leave him loose on the streets. WTH did they expect to happen?!]
The violent crime trend reversed post-Red Flag, to increase.
Suicide Rate per 100,000
2013: 12.9
2014: 12.5 (down)
2015: 12.0 (down) 2016: 12.0 (no change) Red Flag Passes
2017: 12.3 (up)
2018: 12.86 (UP!)
The suicide rate trend reversed post-Red Flag, to increase.
Such a surprise. Not.
Wintemute et al went with a synthetic control — showing no effect of the Red Flag law to hide the fact that no only did it have an effect, but it appeared to make things worse.
* Sorry; I had to go with Violent Crime Rate, which includes homicides, because multiple fast searches didn’t turn up homicide rates broken out separately. There’s only so much I can do without funding.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
