No, SCOTUS did not overturn its own BRUEN decsion; a federal district judge in New York effectively did it.
The case is Goldstein et al v. Hochul, challenging New York’s post-Bruen state law banning firearms in “sensitive places,” specifically in this case places of worship. Plaintiffs requested a temporary injunction to prevent the state and other parties enforcing that law pending the outcome of the case.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the injunction. His… reasoning (for some values of that word) was…
Well, let him tell it.
The implications of firearm ownership in both the founding and reconstruction eras was thus dramatically different from those in 2023, and thus, answering the question of whether statutes and regulations from those respective time periods are “relevantly similar under the Second Amendment”, Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2132, is an enormously difficult task that is likely to lead to inconsistent decisions that are untethered to reality, and is considered by many to be an impractical and intellectually flawed approach.
You can follow that link and see who appointed this… person, but you can take one guess and probably nail it.
Vern, it isn’t your place to second guess the Supreme Court, ignore its rulings, and go your own way.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Vern, you’re a judge in the Southern District of New York. That makes your court“inferior” to the “supreme” Court, and you have to follow its decisions. Like it or not.
What’s next? While I wouldn’t expect it in pro-abortion New York, thus depriving Broderick of the opportunity to declare the DOBBS overturning of Roe V. Wade to be “impractical and intellectually flawed” and “untethered to reality,” will some other judge follow his lead here?
If a federal district judge can blow off the Supreme Court, can we blow off his decisions when we don’t like them?
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Did you hear about the guy wearing a helmet shooting up Turnberry Towers in Las Vegas with an “AR-15” last Friday? Unless you do your own specific news searches, you probably didn’t.
ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC, MSNBC… none of them seems to be covering it for some strange reason. Normally some bad guy blasting away with one of those evil black AR-15s — especially in Vegas — gets wall-to-wall coverage, accompanied by more calls to ban ’em. But not this time. Crickets. Nowhere to be seen, other than a local report.
The resident says it was an employee of the towers who stopped the attack, and thinks they are a hero who deserves recognition for stepping in.
Yep, effective armed self defense by a honest person carrying lawfully. They can’t afford to publicize that, even at the cost of missing a chance to demonize AR-patterns firearms. First rule of mainstream media: never admit armed defense works, especially when it may have stopped a mass shooting.
And speaking of that “AR-15″… the report does refer to the weapon as such, but I’m not so sure. Let’s check the video.
There is a pistol grip, but I see no magazine protruding. The barrel appears thin, with no shroud or gas tube. I’m not enough of a firearm ID expert to say what it is, but it doesn’t look like anything in the AR family.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Connecticut Dimwit Senator Chris Murphy. Of course.
America a crying out for Congress to do something about mass shootings. So what is Senate Republicans’ answer? To force a vote today on a resolution that would legalize a class of assault weapons that have been banned for 100 years.
I’m heading to the Senate floor to oppose it.
Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins was a bit confused by Murphy’s tweet.
It is difficult to decipher Murphy’s tweet, as the Republican effort to block the ATF is about protecting guns with stabilizer braces that were legal to own without registration up until June 1, 2023.
What really confused him is that Murphy is simply dumber than a box of rocks.
Republicans were attempting to legislatively block the ATF’s pistol brace rule. That nonlegislative law-making declared braced pistols to be short-barrel rifles. Murphy, being stupid and ignorant — and apparently surrounded by equally incompetent staffers who couldn’t set him straight — seems to think short-barrel rifles are banned. They are not. Not even in Connecticut.
SBRs are regulated under the National Firearms Act; requiring the payment of a tax to lawfully possess. Murphy, had he two neurons to rub together, might have noticed that the ATF’s new, unconstitutional rule allowed a grace period for braced pistol owners to register their magically-turned-into-rifles pistols. I assume this regulation is what the idiot mistook for a ban.
Digression: I wouldn’t blame anyone who decided to use the ATF’s “amnesty” to register. It’s not a bad deal, given the regulatory environment we’re stuck with for now. But not for the reason the ATF thinks.
The ATF waived the registration tax. So you could register your braced pistol for free. And now that it’s a short-barrel rifle…
…you equip it with a real stock, and the barrel length of your choice. And now you have a real SBR ready to go, no charge. Transferable.
End digression
Possibly Hawkins was also confused by Murphy’s claim that this “ban” happened 100 years ago. Here’s a hint for the Connecticut cluck: the regualtion is through the National Firearms Act of 1934. That would be 89 years ago (minus a few days, as I type this); not 100.
Hawkins’ column mentions that these pistols were perfectly legal prior to the ATF arrogating Congress’ authority. And that raises an interesting point about the NFA and SBRs.
SBRs were regulated because Congress of the time considered them dangerously concealable. But pistols are even more concealable, yet not NFA regulated. The difference was how powerful a cut-down rifle is compared to a typical handgun. So there were really two factors that determined an SBR: barrel length and power.
But what was a pistol last month, and is now a rifle, still fires the same round. The brace doesn’t make it more powerful. It’s the same blasted gun.
I’d argue that this is one more indicator that the brace rule violates Congress’ intent. That might be an extra point to be raised in lawsuits challenging the rule.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Tulsa Police Chief Wendell Franklin is an oath breaker, of the very worst I support the Second Amendment but… sort.
Tulsa police chief suggests nation transform response to gun violence
Ultimately, I’m a Second Amendment guy. I own guns of course. But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom, right? We had to give up some of that freedom after 9/11. I’m okay with waiting three days, five days, or whatever to get my firearm if I go out and purchase another firearm. So I’m okay with a pause to allow for weapons to be purchased and allow the government and the gun companies to look at the background and do a thorough check before that gun goes to someone.
“I, _________, do solemnly (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and that I will not, knowingly, receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable thing, for the performance or nonperformance of any act or duty pertaining to my office, other than the compensation allowed by law; I further swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my duties as _________ to the best of my ability.”
That “Constitution” includes the Second Amendment, perjuror. You just disqualified yourself for any office in Oklahoma… like Tulsa police chief.
any person who shall have been convicted of having sworn or affirmed falsely, or having violated said oath, or affirmation, shall be guilty of perjury, and shall be disqualified from holding any office of trust or profit within the State.
Aside from being an oath breaker, Franklin’s not terribly bright.
Ultimately, law enforcement, we are the experts.
Let’s run down the list of infringements he’s OK with.
Permitless carry: There’s a reason we call that “constitutional carry,” expert.
“Unregulated ghost guns”: Define ghost gun. If it’s a commercial firearm with obliterated serial number, there are existing laws about that crime. If you mean home-made firearms, there are laws and rules for those, too. You’d think an expert would know that.
Straw purchases: That’s been illegal for decades. And an expert should have noticed that Congress beefed up the penalties for it a year ago; it was big in the news as the Dims were quite proud of it. Huh; has Franklin ever seen a 4473?
“High-powered weapons like AR-15”: The vast majority of “AR-15s,” and other AR-pattern firearms, are chambered for .223/5.56; that’s an intermediate power cartridge, not “high-powered.”
Waiting periods: Because that works so well to reduce the violence in California?
Background checks: Note that he specifically put this one in the context of firearms purchased from “gun companies;” that is, commercial sales. Which have required background checks for effin’ decades. Again, that’s an obscure detail that I’d expect an “expert” to have noticed at some point.
His first-person waiting period example is especially (morbidly) funny. He thinks making himself wait when purchasing another gun in addition to what he already has will reduce violence. First, if he doesn’t trust himself not to get murder-happy with a new gun, why should Tulsans trust him with a duty weapon? Second, how does that waiting period prevent him using what he already has, if he does have the violent tendencies which he inadvertently implies?
Tulsa, you have an ignorant oath breaker, with possible homicidal inclination, for a police chief. You might want to look into that.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Hunter Biden has finally been charged for that handgun he bought (and lied on the 4473) back in 2018 when he admitted to being a unlawful drug addict. But they’re essentially letting him off.
With “diversion.”
The defendant has agreed to enter a Pretrial Diversion Agreement with respect to the firearm Information.
The remaining tax charges are — conveniently — mere misdemeanors. So the Tier-1 offender escapes any felony conviction. Not so much for us Tier-2 peons, as Deja Taylor recently discovered.
Crackhunter is charged with violating 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(3), unlawful drug user in possession of a firearm. What he mysteriously is not charged with is a 18 U.S. Code § 922(a)(6) violation: lying on the 4473.
(6)for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;
That’s what the feds nailed Deja Taylor on, along with using unlawful drugs. Biden dodged both, for some strange reason. Must be nice to be the son of President Gropey Dementia.
(2)Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
But the crackhead is charged with violating 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(3). The applicable penalty for that is in 18 U.S. Code § 924(a)(8).
8)Whoever knowingly violates subsection (d) or (g) of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both.
So let’s summarize: If you’re not a Biden, within mere months of being caught lying on the 4473 and unlawfully possessing a firearm, you’ll be facing two years of hard time in Club Fed.
If you are a Biden, the feds will cover for you for years, and when finally cornered and forced to appear to do something, you’ll be allowed to avoid any felony conviction, much less any prison time. And they’ll “accidentally” use the wrong penalty citation to make it look like you faced less time than what federal law actually calls for.
You might want to bear that in mind if you, as a second tier citizen as opposed to Tier-1 nomenklatura, get busted for a pistol brace or bump stock; and act accordingly.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
A friend of mine in far away Nicaragua sent an article recently that reminded me very much of one I wrote years ago. I attempted to find the disc I have the original on to pick some sections out if it to quote. But well, once I hit some old photos and started copying and pasting and had gone through about a half dozen or more discs I decided to knock it off and just go off recall. Some of the worst I can remember. Besides which, it fits into a larger pattern I’m seeing and I don’t like it, and I don’t like where it’s headed.
So, what’s put the burr under my saddle blanket this time and has me highly annoyed?
UN-elected bureaucrats. They are often confused with bottom dwelling pond slime, so be able to tell the difference, it’s very slight sometimes.
Apparently in Virginia some bottom feeder from Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources decided they could go wherever they chose, in camo, and steal a man’s game camera and terrify his family while they played basketball by lurking in the family’s woods and behaving like a voyeur, a state funded stalker if you will. When the terrified wife ran for her husband the state funded thief took off. With their game camera. There’s more of course. Virginia wildlife officials trespassed on man’s land, stole his trail camera, lawsuit alleges
Now it doesn’t take much to set me off on the Department of Conservation, I despise them. They can and do come onto your land without a warrant, poke around wherever they choose, if you have locked gates it doesn’t matter. If you have livestock and they let it out, they are not liable. If your livestock gets out in the road and causes and accident, they aren’t liable, you are. If it was livestock you were fond of? Tough. Like I said, bottom dwelling pond scum. In the article I wrote years ago it talked about some pretty egregious things. There was a movement in my state a few years ago to rein them in. They’ve been known to seize mounted deer heads worth a lot of money and claim the owner wasn’t entitled to them. No warrant. Game meat taken out of freezers, there was a large group that had met several times to discuss what was going on with the Department of Conservation. People contacted their elected representatives, promises were made and, nothing, zip, nada. Their behavior really is criminal. For example;
Once I asked Ziehmer if he approved of the situation down in Douglas County where a dying man had willed 200 acres of land to the Department of Conservation. Just after the man died the department sent in their surveyor and attempted to rearrange the boundary so that it would take about 25 or 30 acres from three neighboring landowners without ever notifying them.
This involved cutting trees from neighbors’ land, setting a new boundary and posting signs telling the real owners of the land to stay off the land they had owned for decades. The landowners had to pay lawyers quite a lot of money and go through a long legal battle just to get back that land. In that interview I asked Ziehmer why they had done such a thing. Draper looked at him as if to say ‘‘keep quiet’’ and then he answered with something that sounded as if he had written it down and memorized it.
“The people of It Could Be Any State USA expect us to accumulate and expand land for them to hunt or hike or otherwise enjoy,” he said.
My next question was, “Do you think the people of Missouri collectively would approve of what you did there next to land a dying man gave you, a man who had long known and respected his neighbors. If all It Could Be Any State USA citizens knew all about it, would the majority be happy with what you have done?”
My latest interaction was they showed up on my land for no good reason. One of my neighbors tipped me off they saw him snooping around. I’m a vegetarian. I don’t hunt and I don’t allow it. So. I called up the local game warden and politely introduced myself “Yes this is Sheila at 1313 WhatTheHeckAreYouDoingOnMyProperty Lane. I’ve been informed you were on my property, uninvited. Why?” I managed to keep the growl out of my voice, and I’m very proud of that. Well, turns out he was looking for baiting. I’m a vegetarian and I don’t allow hunting. Why didn’t you check with me? Now I’m well aware they don’t have to. These unelected bottom feeders can go anywhere, even the country sheriff can’t really do that without a reason, I don’t believe. Well, he finally admitted he was on the wrong property….ass. Bet he votes Demoncrat.
But with the way things are going I can well see a department that already abuses their authority to do unscrupulous activity for an unscrupulous law enforcement agency. Need a little look-see and don’t have a warrant and can’t get one? Call your local game warden. Bottom feeders. Ok, ok, I’ll admit, I’m biased, but I don’t like bullies and I don’t like liars. YMMV, but you might want to look into what your Department of Conservation can get away with.
But this next too big for their britches, or their job description I think we can agree on.
“We have now confirmed that both the IRS and the ATF were at Highwood Creek Outfitters in Great Falls around 7 am this morning. Both the IRS and ATF would not say why they were there,” KMON Radio reported.
“A spokeswoman for the IRS would only say they were there on official IRS business. The ATF says it was providing assistance to the IRS. We attempted to enter the store today and were stopped by agents at the door who would only say that the gun store is closed and will reopen tomorrow,” the news outlet added.
….
Although the Montana Department of Justice claimed no involvement in the incident, an IRS spokesperson confirmed their presence at Highwood Creek Outfitters but refrained from providing further details.
….
The recent incident has attracted political attention, with Congressman Matt Rosendale expressing his concern over the IRS and ATF’s actions, interpreting them as another example of the Biden regime’s weaponization of federal agencies against hardworking Americans.
“I’m incredibly disturbed by initial reports that the IRS and ATF closed Highwood Creek Outfitters without any warning today,” said Rep Rosendale in a statement.
Well, no flies on Rep. Rosendale…what did people think the IRS would do when they got all that shiny new firepower and ammo except use it on law-abiding citizens. Dealing with criminals is dangerous! These days there is no government bureau that is not abusing it’s power and will not abuse it.
You know, we’ve sent an awful lot of taxpayer money to be laundered in Ukraine and sent back shiny and clean to the Bidden crime regime. We’ve got to cut corners somewhere. Defund the ATF, FIB, CIA and IRS. It won’t begin to cover the debt, but it’s at least making a start.
A young man in Minnesota is facing a September trial for the unlawful possession of two firearms without serial numbers. The problem with the charges is that the firearms in question were home builds; private manufacture, not commercial.
The County Attorney and law enforcement have charged Walker with violating MN 609.667 because his privately made firearms do not have serial numbers on them – despite not being required under federal law – and, in our opinion, not needed under Minnesota statutes.
Whoever commits any of the following acts may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both:
(3) receives or possesses a firearm that is not identified by a serial number.
…but, it not quite.
As used in this section, “serial number or other identification” means the serial number and other information required under United States Code, title 26, section 5842, for the identification of firearms.
Each manufacturer and importer and anyone making a firearm shall identify each firearm, other than a destructive device, manufactured, imported, or made by a serial number which may not be readily removed, obliterated, or altered, the name of the manufacturer, importer, or maker, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.
If you’re an idiot Sherbourne County deputy, county attorney, or judge mostly unfamiliar with federal law, that probably seems clear. They forgot to look at the chapter definitions, described in 26 USC 5845.
(a)Firearm
The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.
That chapter is talking about commercial manufacture and NFA firearms. Unless Walker‘s firearms are short-barrel rifles, or other NFA item, federal law does not require serial numbers. The firearms in question appear to be an AR-pattern 9mm pistol and an AR-10 with a 20 inch barrel. Not NFA.
My guess is that — unless someone hits the County Attorney with a clue bat, Walker will initially be convicted, the courts being what they are these days.
He should win on eventual appeal; though Ghu only knows how high the appeals will have to go. It’s going to be expensive, so if you can, you might contribute a little something to his GiveSendGo legal fund.
And once Walker’s record is cleared, he needs to sue the ever-loving s–t out of the idiot deputies and the County Attorney. None of them can claim good faith ignorance of the law since…
Walker informed the deputy of the federal laws around PMFs and not requiring a serial number if for personal use. And since he is a lawful gun owner, no restrictions on owning them. The deputies detained Walker for several hours, and confiscated his firearms.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
The purpose of which would be to gut the Second Amendment, of course. On paper, anyway. I figure this is really just a PR stunt for the Presidential run that many folks think he’s planning. He should get out of Kalifornia and meet real people more often; I don’t think this would go as he wishes.
Gavin Newsom wants 28th Amendment for guns in U.S. Constitution Gov. Gavin Newsom is seeking an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict gun ownership — a daunting and likely quixotic response to the deadliest wave of mass shootings in U.S. history that would nonetheless position California as the most aggressive state in the union on gun control.
The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms — while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:
1) Raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21
2) Universal background checks
3) A reasonable waiting period for gun purchases
4) Banning the civilian purchase of assault weapons
Note these are the usual human/civil rights infringements that Dims have failed to legislate nationally with simple House and Senate majorities. Yet somehow he would have you think that this could pass with with two-thirds supermajorities, and then be ratified by three-fourths of all the states.
Color me dubious in a time when the majority of states are rolling back Second Amendment rights infringements.
That in itself is interesting enough, but apparently the delusional, wanna-be king of America is going a little farther, and wisely trying to bypass the pesky Congressional supermajority problem.
The effort positions California at the forefront of the fight for increased gun restrictions. Newsom and the state Legislature in Sacramento are set to kickoff a nationwide process that would require support from 34 states to trigger a convention.
A Constitutional Convention! That skips Congress and only requires two-thirds of the states to kick off. And just maybe it could happen.
Because I think, assuming Newscum is serious about it and not merely pushing publicity for a potential White House run, he may have forgotten something: One does not call a Constitutional Convention to only vote on the one single proposed Amendment you want. With a Convention, everything is on the table.
Recall that the last time we held a Constituonal Convention, the entire Articles of Confederation got chucked out, and we ended up with the Constitution (and eventually that Second Amendment that so annoys the Dick-tator of Kalifornia). All sorts of things could end up in there. For instance, we already have this demand
Raising the age to buy a gun should come with raising the age to vote. If I can’t buy a gun yet because I’m too immature, I’m also too immature to pick who has the nuclear codes.
Hey! The Lefties could codify the oft-cited “separation of church and state;” and we could toss in separation of science and education from state. Incorporated to the states, naturally.
Perhaps new language clarifying the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to read:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Violation of those rights shall be a capital offense.
The powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution shall be strictly limited to those explicity enumerated. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people; and any attempt by the United States to exercise undelegated and unenumerated powers shall be treated as a High Crime tantamount to treason with the death penalty as a a potential penalty.
Any attempt to exercise undelegated and unenumerated powers under the guise of claiming the action promotes the general Welfare SHALL be a capital offense and the death penalty mandatory upon conviction.
We could take a hint form H. Beam Piper’s Lone Star Planet (A Plant for Texans), and make killing politicians for malfeasance and misfeasance a crime only to the extent that the punishment exceed the crime. I like that one.
But those are half measures. Twenty-something years ago, just for fun, I drafted a little constitution-style document. It was based on L. Neil Smith’s Covenant of Unanimous Consent (which fictionally replaced the Bill of Rights in his “Probability Broach” alternate universe). In a later novel, some potential loopholes in the Covenant were mentioned. My little document was an attempt to close those, and maybe some other problems confirmed statists might try to exploit.
Should Newscum somehow manage to call a Constitutional Convention, I swear to G-d that I will push for my Articles of Individuals to be adopted. With zero success, I’ve no doubt. My fallback will then be my 9/10th improvements and the “general Welfare abuse capital punishment clause.
Yes, Newscum, everything is on the table at a Convention, and anything can be added to the table, too.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Yesterday, June 6, 2023, federal judge Robert J. Bryan issued a ruling denying a preliminary injunction against Washington’s “assault weapon” ban. In my not so humble opinion, this proves that it is high time for the elderly –88 years old — Bryan to retire.
Reading his decision, a couple of points jumped out at me. I’ll begin with one that would almost be funny if the topic, victim disarmament, weren’t so serious.
Semiautomatic assault weapons represent a significant technological change – they allow a shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, unlike previous guns.
Possibly the mentally challenged judge meant that such arms can be fired repeatedly “as fast as they can pull the trigger.” But specificity in law matters; we’ll take him at his specific written word, and note that any firearm, since the medieval hand cannons fired by setting a light to the touch hole, can be fired simply by pulling the trigger.
Allowing that maybe in his dotage he did mean rapid repeat fire…
Paging Jerry Miculek!. Eight rounds on target. In one second. With a revolver, not a semiautomatic firearm.
Moving on to the very next sentence:
While semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15 were invented in the 1950s, the growth in ownership of semiautomatic assault weapons proliferated in the late 2000s.
Bryan, please note those were in the 19th century. We’re currently in the 21st century, and the basic idea of semiautomatic firearms is hardly innovative anymore.
That part was merely morbidly amusing (if you have my sort of twisted sense of humor). Bryan’s explanation of why Washington’s ban does not run afoul of the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling (which requires to be constitutional, a gun control law must be based in a general historical tradition) is scary. “General” meaning that isolated local laws don’t count; and “historical” meaning somewhere in the chronological neighborhood of the passage of the Second Amendment or earlier.
For an example of an applicable law, he cites local laws against carrying — not a ban on ownership — of Bowie knives not even invented until decades after the proper historical time frame. Bryan is clearly losing it.
Nay, completely lost it. Because he also cites…. Well, in his own words:
[C]omplete bans on the possession of certain weapons (as opposed to laws forbidding the carrying of those weapons) did not occur as much in our early Nation’s history because the federal and state governments did not have the “maturity, powers, tools, or resources” to implement and enforce a complete ban.
Yes, he cited nonexistent laws which he supposes would have been passed and enforced, if only the poor government had the sheer raw power to get away with it. In his mind, it seems that constitutional authority derives from tyrannical, police state force not the ratified agreed-to words of the actual document.
And I guess he figures that Washington has accumulated sufficient power now, so it’s all good.
We’ll see. If constitutional authority now comes down to who has the most guns and accurate targeting, and not the legal language of the Constitution and courts, Bryan may be putting himself out of work, retirement or no. After all, mightn’t some people decide that if might makes right, is on the side of the heaviest artillery; why not skip wasting money on court challenges and go straight to Bryan’s preferred test-by- fire-power?
This ruling was so bizarre that I wondered if his… thinking was reflected in other cases he’s heard. The very first case I found in a quick search was Tingley v. Equal Rights Washington, in which a therapist was challenging the state’s ban on “conversion therapy. Bryan ruled against Tingley.
Regardless of your personal take on “convesrion therapy” (“curing” people of homosexuality), Bryan’s rationale in this should also raise questions about his mental competence.
The prohibited conduct at issue here, performing conversion therapy, is analogous to doctor giving a prescription for marijuana because it involves engaging in a specific act designed to provide treatment. In contrast, the speech at issue in NIFLA, notice requirements that regulated the information a provider must give to its patients, is more analogous to a doctor recommending that a patient use marijuana because both consider information that a provider may discuss with a patient.
TL;DR: You can have opinions on “conversion therapy” or medical marijuana, and discuss the options with a patient. But you can no more conduct/prescribe “conversion therapy” than you could prescribe medical marijuana. Prescribing marijuana is unlawful, so “conversion therapy is unlawful. Or so Bryan thinks.
Except that in Washington, it islawful to prescribe medical marijuana, and had been for decades when Bryan made that error-riddled ruling.
You’d think that a professionally, and mentally, competent judge could come up with a better comparison. Or at least one that wasn’t exactly the fricking opposite of what he was claiming. Considering the two cases together…
“Might makes right.” That’s one heck of a constitutional test. And I can hardly wait to see what the Ninth Circuit makes of the proposition. Do they uphold the state’s ban, or do they do a quick head count to see who has more guns and might — the state or the people — and decide accordingly?
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Today is D-Day, and I suppose in a lead up to D-Day Shimshon and I have been watching some (what I consider) relevant movies and documentaries. We started watching Band of Brothers last week and a couple of nights ago finished it. One of the episodes is called “Why We Fight”. If you haven’t seen Band of Brothers I’ll give you the relevant point. The war is pretty much over, a few of the men from Easy Company are out in the woods on patrol, just kind of clearing the area when they run across the first concentration camp they’ve seen. They don’t know what it is. They send one of the men back to headquarters to try to find an officer. He finds Dick Winters (who was a very good officer, and I suspect and even better human) and the next scene is of a few officers; Ronald Speirs, Lewis Nixon and some of the rest of Easy Company including Joesph Liebgott. This mattered because Liebgott spoke German. In the first part of the episode many of the men had been questioning why had they given up the years of their lives to live in trenches and fight bad men. After they saw the concentration camps, and Liebgott was able to ask them questions and relay the answers to the officers they all more fully understood the situation. Dick Winters later tells Lewis Nixon the Russians found camps that were even worse. I suspect that may have been the first time some of the boys had seen that level of depravity and evil that can be inflicted on fellow human beings. The next lesson the men learned was “cultured, civilized” people are perfectly capable of standing by and allowing the atrocities, murder and starvation of innocent people. When the men of Easy talked to the town people they all denied knowing anything about it. Apparently one of the Generals had a brilliant idea. The townspeople were hauled out to the concentration camp to bury the bodies. The trait is easily visible today and when someone is being attacked there will be 4,352 TikTok, YouTube and FakeBook videos of the whole thing. Of someone like Daniel Penny stepping in to help others? Not so many.
The next atrocity to be fought was in Israel. You see the Not So Great Britain was there. Last night Shimshon and I watched the 2014 Documentary The Forsaken Promise. This is the whole documentary. Not sure how long it will be there.
The League of Nations trusted Britain to establish a national home for the Jews in their historic homeland, Israel.
The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-miles3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5
The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community in blissful unawareness of Arab opposition to the very notion of Jewish historical rights in Palestine. The Mandate weathered the test of time: On April 18, 1946, when the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations, the international community, in essence, reaffirmed the validity of this international accord and reconfirmed that the terms for a Jewish National Home were the will of the international community, a “sacred trust” – despite the fact that by then it was patently clear that the Arabs opposed a Jewish National Home, no matter what the form.
But despite being trusted by the entire league of nations to re-establish Israel (the nation, the tribes) in Israel (the land) Britain did not do that. In fact, Britain not only limited the number of Jews fleeing hitler and the nazis, they sent refugee ships back. But, so did America under the Demoncratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The British disarmed the Jews living in Israel as best as they could, while arming the arabs. In the riots of the 1920s and onward the Brits would stand back and allowed the Jews they had disarmed to be slaughtered. One horrific example at 1:45:00 into the documentary details the attack of 13 April 1948 when a medical convoy was trying to get to the Hadassah hospital in the besieged Jerusalem. The convoy was carrying patients, medical personnel and supplies, it was stopped and attacked by arabs. The Brits checked every convoy trying to get into Jerusalem to make sure that none of the Jews had any weapons, so they were defenseless against the arabs. The people were butchered. No, I didn’t mean killed. There was a British outpost nearby and the soldiers wanted to intervene and were told to stand down. It is reported some of the soldiers cried as they watched the slaughter and mutilation that followed. But they didn’t do anything. There are photographs of the aftermath in the video.
When the refugee ships came in to Israel, the Brits would put the Jews in one of several prison camps. One woman was in prison for five years, she and her husband had escaped, but she lost her whole family to the nazis in the concentration camps. She told of how the British soldiers would beat the prisoners, really they were quite despicable. But if you look at the pattern of the Brits…..America vs. Britain, Ireland vs Britain, Israel vs. Britain….Britain has not been on the side of good in any of those, and in the beginning of WWII Chamberlain made appeasement with hitler, so.
There was really nothing Israel could do about it at this point. They didn’t have control of their own country. The British did, the Jewish Israelis just had to suffer at the whims of the anti-Semitic British government. Oh, yes I did mean to say that. Watch the documentary. See, when your local politicians are not in control, when they have to bow to the will of others who may not have the very best welfare of your nation at heart when making decisions, it will not turn out well. This is something to keep in mind as the traitorous criminal Joe Biden tries to turn U.S. over to the benevolent dictatorship of the W.H.O. with the pandemic treaty. WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Threat to Liberty. They are already talking about digital tracking. Seems the injection mandates and green passports were just such a dandy paradigm that a lot of the framework is already in place. We already have the FIB so we have the SS who are willing to throw political opposition in the Gulag to prevent them from speaking out. According to whistle blower Steven Friend, it’s not the rank and file of the FIB, instead is the leadership at the top.
Which brings me to leadership. Both examples are from WWII, both of these men came from humble backgrounds. I don’t know that either of them ever aspired to fame, but G-d put something in them that was needed on that day at that time, leadership.
The first man I mentioned earlier, Ronald Speirs, clip is 1:26 seconds long.
The next man I think I may have written about before, General Norman Dutch Cota, he puts paid to the notion you have to be in your prime and in great shape to make great things happen. 7:05 seconds long.
These men fought, because they knew what lay behind them were things they loved and cared about, family, friends and a way of life, their country and freedom to live their lives as they chose. They may have known some of what they were fighting against in front of them, but I don’t think in the beginning they even fully grasped the depth of evil they were up against. Man’s inhumanity to man.
I believe G-d puts the ability to fight back against evil into every creature. I believe we have the ability to fight on despite odds being against us. Every creature.
That cat absolutely is inspiring, and yes, it’s a cat not a small dog. Dogs don’t slap or bat like that. It’s a partisan guerilla cat! It gets in, gets the job done and gets out. A Chuck Norris cat.
Yes, we have a lot stacked against U.S. right now, and many of our fellow citizens have fallen victim to the Fifth Generation Warfare being conducted against U.S. by our own corrupt government. So we may not have as many allies as we should, and have more enemies than we deserve. But we don’t get to choose that bit. We do get to choose if we will pick up the torch that was handed U.S. by the men and women of WWII. It’s all about our mindsets. Maybe we will talk to people, maybe we will contact politicians, maybe we will go to political rallies and meetings, maybe we will donate money to people like Sen. Josh Hawley that actually do fight back. Goodness knows Soros donates to the likes of Kim Fox, Kim Gardner and their ilk. Maybe we just talk to our kids and grandkids and make sure they understand truth and reality and try to offset some of the damage being done in public schools. Maybe we become more informed about issues. Maybe we join our local grassroots Second Amendment group. But there will be some way for each of us to fight, because 79 years after D-Day, we have a far better idea of why we fight than they did that day they landed on the beaches of Normandy.
This is Jim Quinn’s D-Day tribute, he’s been doing it for years. It starts after 42 seconds.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
