That’s one. Well, actually two, now, since getting rid of Chris Cox was another of my conditions.
Seriously. Fire Wayne LaPierre. Chris Cox, too.
Then repudiate ERPOs and bump-fire bans. Apologize for opposing constitutional carry, for helping draft “assault weapons” bans, and endorsing obviously anti-human/civil rights politicians. Hell, apologize for supporting NFA ’34, GCA ’68, FOPA ’86, et cetera (it’s a long list).
And I’ll at least think about maybe joining.
I don’t expect them to actually apologize for all that, but then I expected E-Veep-For-Life LaPierre to die in office.
And it’s a minor thing, pertinent only to me, but I’d like them to either give me the magazine back issues I missed when they kept canceling my membership in the ’90s and sending me membership renewal notices, or refund me for the years of a five-year membership they disappeared. That and the city “assault weapon” ban that the NRA wrote were the final straws. It’s sort of a toss-up whether I quit or they canceled me again.
Well, his resignation is effective January 31. I guess we should watch to see how much more damage he can do on the way out.
For years, I’ve warned about the dangers of precedents; in laws, bureaucratic regulation, and judicial. My personal ball got rolling back inthe 1990s with the passage of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. CALEA was passed to “help” LE catch criminals, by making it easier to tap phone calls.
The Communications Assistance for law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a statute enacted by Congress in 1994 to require that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities to comply with legal requests for information. CALEA is intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance while protecting the privacy of information outside the scope of the investigation.
Sure. But it morphed into requiring the capability to monitor 10% of switch traffic at the same time; ten percent of all phones in the country. And remotely, so LE doesn’t even have to come to the switch office and physically tap a single line. It was expanded to include Internet traffic.
What could possibly go wrong? Who could have foreseen that someone later would use those tools to monitor thousands of innocent Americans, or even spy on the opposition’s election campaign?
Well… “Who,” other than myself and thousands of other privacy advocates.
The Colorado Supreme Court just gave us a real doozy of a precedent: it just declared Donald Trump to be an “insurrectionist” ineligible to appear on the state primary ballot.
Love Trump or hate him (and I’m no great fan), the “reasoning” and “process” behind this decision is frightening; enough so that I’ll never travel to or through Colorado again.
The CO supreme court majority (there are three dissenters with some self-awareness) simply declared Trump to be guilty of insurrection. They deliberately and specifically denied the need for an actual charge of 18 U.S.C. § 2383 insurrection, a trial, evidence, or conviction. They specifically denied any requirement for Fifth Amendment due process. The accusation — in a civil case that Trump was not a party to — is all it takes for a life sentence of ineligibility to hold office or appear on a ballot.
Because Amendment 14, Section 3 is magically “self-executing.”
There is no Fifth Amendment in Colorado.
If this were to go to the US Supreme Court (and Trump says he’ll appeal), we might well learn there is no Fifth Amendment in the country.
But let’s look at the flip side of this insane precedent, under the almost-worst case scenario*:
Imagine down the road we end up with a hard-core right-wing administration; a Republican president perhaps, with as little respect for the whole Constitution as many current Republicans (don’t forget who saddled us with CALEA, PATRIOT, and bump-stock bans in the first place). Let’s say President Smith ran on a platform plank of doing something about the ATF, winning hearts and minds of American gun owners.
On the one hand, we have an agency whose specific job is to infringe on Second Amendment rights.
On the other hand, we have a precedent that says Constitutional amendments are automatically “self-executing,” and punishments for violation of the 2A don’t require indictment, trial, evidence, facing accusers, or defense. And one day, President Smith Tyrant simply send US Marshals to every ATF office in the country to round up every agent and employee, and drag their sorry asses off to the gulags, never to be heard from again.
Or… Federal Election Commission, meet the self-executing First Amendment.
You can probably think of one or two others that could use a dose of Constitutional self-execution.
So to speak.
* The worst case scenario would be SCOTUS making this a national precedent with the current administration, which proceed to rape the country faster and harder than it already is.
This bill purports to ban the distribution of 3D-printer files used to build firearms.
Purports.
“(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute, over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web, digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm…
Now if he’d just left it at that, he’d merely be a constitutional idiot. But let’s look at the rest of that sentence
to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver.”.
Yes, Markey still thinks 3D additive manufacturing printers start with unfinished frame/receivers.
Still? Perhaps you’ve gotten a sense of deja vu. Markey rode this short bus two years ago.
“(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute, over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web, digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver.”.
Look familiar? Two years on, and he still can’t figure out the difference between additive 3D-printing and subtractive CNC machining (like a Ghost Gunner mill that does complete unfinished frames/receivers).
Or maybe it’s idiocy with a large dose of insanity.
You know, if Markey — his staffers, rather — followed opposition sites like The Zelman Partisans perhaps he’d figure out just why his bill cannot do what it purports, even if it magically passed into law. But I give this attempt no better odds than S. 2319, which whimpered and died in committee.
And yes, I still giggle at this part.
over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web
I still haven’t found a “World Wide Web” that does not operate over the Internet.
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.
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.
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>
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.
“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!
Ah yes, another day which will live in infamy. Goodness know people who love citizen control seem to be drawn to it. I’m passing this along from a list I’m on, those that can drop a note, please do so.
The Department of Justice has put forth a proposal amending ATF regulations to implement the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that broaden the definition of when a person is considered “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms which would require that individual to acquire a Federal Firearms License (FFL).
This proposal defines, among other things, the following to be dealers:
Anyone who sells or offers for sale a firearm within 30 days of purchase.
Anyone who sells or offers for sale firearms that are new or like new in their original packaging.
Anyone who makes or maintains records in any form to document firearms purchases.
Any violation of this regulation would result in asset forfeiture, fines, and/or imprisonment. This proposed regulation is essentially a back door attempt to establish a national gun registry, which is illegal. A national registry is the first step for gun confiscation.
Before this proposal can go into effect there must be an opportunity for citizens to make comments for and against it. The Comment Period ends December 7th.
I am asking each of you to submit your comments objecting to this egregious proposal. You can do this by going online to Regulations.gov and referencing Docket Number ATF 2022R-17 or by mailing a letter (postmarked December 7th or before) to:
Helen Koppe
Mail Stop 6N-518
ATF Office of Regulatory Affairs
99 New York Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20226
Attached is a sample form letter containing objections you could put forth. Please read and select certain portions to state your objections. Do not copy anything verbatim, put it in your own words. There is a lot in there to pick from.
Remember to be polite and respectful.
The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to defend.
RE: ATF 2022R-17 To whom it concern: On behalf of __________, a _____ of __ (members, participants pick one), we are writing to object to several provisions of the proposed 27 CFR Part 478. We operate what you would consider to be a gun show. The proposed regulation goes far beyond the language and intent of the new provisions of law set forth in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”). In particular the proposed rulemaking is looking to 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(21)(C) and (22) for support for the definitional provisions being supplied for presumptions as to those “engaged in the business” of selling firearms and selling fire arms with an intent “to earn a profit” as set forth in the proposed regulation. 18 U.S.C. §921 (a)(21)(C) provides: The term “engaged in the business” means–
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms; (emphasis added) Please note this provision states to predominantly earn a profit. The presumptions put forth in the proposed regulations presume that the sale of one firearm for a sum more than the person paid for it constitutes a sale for a profit and requires the person to be a licensed firearms dealer. We submit that this interpretation is beyond the statutory language to “predominately earn a profit”. We also submit that it fails to take into account any other expense or time value of money associated with the sale of the firearm, which is a part of any normal calculation of “profit” and hence is beyond the proper basis of an interpretive regulation. Many of our ________ (members, participants) expend substantial sums to attend our events. These costs would be factored into any reasonable definition of “profit”. But more importantly the presumptions put forward are contrary to the statutory exceptions as to who is a dealer “but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms”. (see above) Many of our table holders are engaged in sales for their personal collections. But the proposed presumptions do not recognize this exception. Further, the proposed regulations conflate together “sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection” and “for a hobby”. The two provisions are separate. The “for a hobby” provision allows a person to sell, exchange or purchase firearms on an occasional basis for a hobby, without being required to obtain a license. The “for a hobby provision” and the “for a personal collection” provision are two separate and distinct items. These provisions relate back as well to the provision of “to predominately earn a profit”.
Therefore, the person who purchases or sells firearms occasionally as a collector or for a hobby is not a firearms dealer, and not required to be licensed. The proposed regulations do not account for this and go beyond the statutory mandate. The proposed regulations provide: Section 478.11 provides in part:
Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis. The term shall include such activities wherever, or through whatever medium, they may be conducted, such as at a gun show or event, flea market, auction house, or gun range or club; at one’s home; by mail order; over the Internet; through the use of other electronic means (e.g., an online broker, online auction, text messaging service, social media raffle, or website); or at any other domestic or international public or private marketplace or premises. * * * * * Engaged in the business— * * * * * (c) Dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker. (1) A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of the person’s personal collection of firearms.
* * *
Whether a person is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms requiring a license is a fact-specific inquiry. Selling large numbers of firearms or engaging or offering to engage in frequent transactions may be highly indicative of business activity. However, there is no minimum threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensing requirement. Similarly, there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. For example, even a single firearm transaction or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence (e.g., where a person represents to others a willingness to acquire more firearms for resale or offers more firearms for sale), may require a license. A person shall be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in
firearms in civil and administrative proceedings, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, when the person— a. Sells or offers for sale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and sell additional firearms; b. c. Spends more money or its equivalent on purchases of firearms for the purpose of resale than the person’s reported gross taxable income during the applicable period of time;
* * *
(iv) Repetitively sells or offers for sale firearms—
i. That are new, or like new in their original packaging; or ii. Of the same or similar kind (i.e., make/manufacturer, model, caliber/gauge, and action) and type (i.e., rifle, shotgun, revolver, pistol, frame, receiver, machinegun, silencer, destructive device, or ‘other’ firearm);
* * *
(4) Where a person’s conduct does not otherwise demonstrate a predominant intent to earn a profit, the person shall not be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms when the person transfers firearms only as bona fide gifts, or occasionally sells firearms only to obtain more valuable, desirable, or useful firearms for the person’s personal collection or hobby. The underlined language deviates substantially for the statutory provision of selling firearms to “predominately earn a profit”. Selling or offering to sell firearms and being willing to buy does not in and of itself evidence that this is being done to “predominately earn a profit”. Most who collect firearms or engage in the sale of firearms for a hobby are willing to buy or willing to sell, but this in and of itself is not establish by a preponderance that they are doing so to “predominately earn a profit”. The provision that a person who spends more money
than their reported gross taxable income on purchasing firearms for resale, has no basis what- so-ever in “profit”. Profit is based on a sum in excess of all costs. Not gross income. Further,
many retired people have a small gross taxable income compared to their assets. This provision is not in conformance with the law.
The provision prohibiting sales of firearms that are like new in their original packing or of a similar kind by manufacturer, model, caliber and type of gun is ludicrous. Virtually every collector or hobbyist focuses their efforts on specific manufactures and types of firearms. They are for the most part devoted to something. Further, like new in original packing firearms are what is the most sought after of collectible firearms. These provisions do not constitute reasonable presumptions by themselves of being engaged in the sale of firearms. Several of the provisions relating to an “intent to predominately earn a profit presumption” are erroneous. The provisions provide in part:
Predominantly earn a profit. (a) The intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection. * * * (b) The intent to predominantly earn a profit is a fact-specific inquiry. A person shall be presumed to have the intent to predominantly earn a profit from the sale or disposition of firearms in civil and administrative proceedings, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, when the person— (1) Advertises, markets, or otherwise promotes a firearms business (e.g., advertises or posts firearms for sale, including on any website, establishes a website for offering their firearms for sale, makes available business cards, or tags firearms with sales prices), regardless of whether the person incurs expenses or only promotes the business informally; (2) Purchases, rents, or otherwise secures or sets aside permanent or temporary physical space to display or store firearms they offer for sale, including part or all of a business premises, o r table space at a gun show, or display case; (3) Makes or maintains records, in any form, to document, track, or calculate profits and losses from firearms purchases and sales; The provisions presume intent to profit without any proof of profit, and shift the burden to the seller of the firearms to prove otherwise and subject the seller to civil forfeiture of their firearms as well 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(1). The changes in the law did not provide that a person could not advertise a firearm for sale, put a price tag on it, place it for sale on the internet, or rent a table at a gun show. The law specifically provides for occasional sales for gun collectors and hobbyist. The proposed
presumptions prohibit all such sales except maybe by word of mouth. These provisions are not in conformance with the law. Gun shows and collector club meetings with sales and purchases by non-dealers were not prohibited by the BSCA. Had that been the intent of the BSCA it would have so stated. Had it stated such, much opposition would have come forth. It is not proper to take actions by regulation that go far beyond what Congress provided in law. We respectfully submit that the provisions in paragraph (c) setting forth presumptions of “engaged in business” and the revisions setting forth presumptions of “intent to earn a profit” are not supported by the language of BSCA, and should not be adopted. Sincerely,
You’ve got to love the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; they’ve been on a roll lately. They shot down the bump-stock ban in Cargill v. Garland. They struck down the ATF’s pistol brace rule in Mock v. Garland (which was the basis for the Northern District of Texas likewise ruling against the ATF.
Now they’ve turned their attention to the odious ATF’s equally odious frame/receiver rule (declaring unfinished, inert lumps of metal to be firearms) in VanDerStok et al v, Garland. A three judge panel ruled against it.
The judges found that the ATF not only exceeded their authority, but directly contradicted statutory law. I generally agree with them; I’ve made many of the same arguments. But I do want to pick one nit.
ATF’s 1978 regulatory definition sufficiently captured most firearms of the era. Modern firearms, however, have developed such that many firearms no longer fall within the definition. In the Final Rule, ATF states that “the majority of firearms in the United States” no longer have a clear frame” or “receiver” that includes all three elements of the prior definition (that is, a hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism). ATF uses the example of an AR-15,6 which does not have a single housing for the bolt (which is part of the “upper assembly”) and the hammer and trigger (which is part of the “lower assembly”).
That’s not something that happened recently, which legislation just hasn’t caught up with as yet. Striker-fired firearms are hardly new. The first striker-fired firearm was invented in 1878; 60 years before the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, and 90 years before the Gun Control Act of 1968. Semiautomatic pistols, where no one part of the firearm contained all of the defining parts, date back to at least 1897.
It’s now 2023, and those types of firearms have been around for well over a century. And yet Congress never saw fit to include them.
Their Honors also had issues with the ATF’s thinking processes, such as they might be.
There is also a clear logical flaw in ATF’s proposal. As written, the Final Rule states that the phrase “frame or receiver” includes things that are admittedly not yet frames or receivers but that can easily become frames or receivers—in other words: parts. As the district court put it, under the Final Rule, “ATF may properly regulate a component as a ‘frame or receiver’ even after ATF determines that the component in question is not a frame or receiver.” Such a proposition defies logic: “a part cannot be both not yet a receiver and a receiver at the same time.”
They caught the ATF attempting conflate laws. The ATF’s rule claimed the power to regulate gun “parts” by noting that the National Firearms Act assigns them the authority to regulate separate parts, like full-auto trigger groups and silencer components, so naturally they can do that with non-NFA parts, right?
No. TL;DR: The authority to regulate non-NFA parts was specifically taken away.
The district court correctly held that ATF has no authority whatsoever to regulate parts that might be incorporated into a “firearm” simply because Congress explicitly removed such authority when it enacted the GCA. The GCA’s predecessor statute, the Federal Firearms Act (“FFA”), had specific language that authorized regulation of “any part or parts of” a firearm. However, Congress removed this language when it enacted the GCA, replacing “any part or parts” with just “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” Thus, the GCA does not allow for regulation of all weapon parts; rather, it limits regulation to two specific types of weapon parts.
While the main decision was largely boring, for those who don’t read these things for fun, Judge Andrew S. Oldham got a little more entertaining in his concurrence. Clearly, he was less than thrilled with the ATF’s refusal to state a definite, objective standard by which to judge when a lump of metal turns into a receiver.
The Final Rule emphasizes this list is “nonexclusive.” And ATF explicitly disclaimed the need to explain how any of these factors would balance in practice: “It is not the purpose of the rule to provide guidance so that persons may structure transactions to avoid the requirements of the law.” This approach violates the Fifth Amendment and its guarantee of fair notice. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012) (“A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.”). The “Government violates this guarantee by taking away someone’s life, liberty, or property under a criminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement.” (emphasis added)
The ATF is whining. “Arbitrary enforcement” is exactly what they wanted. And Oldham caught them. He proceeded to explain in small words for small ATF brains — using pictures — why going from an objective numerical standard of “more than 80% complete” to “we might think it looks like a gun” wasn’t going to cut it. And he wrapped that up with this tidbit.
ATF’s problem is that § 921(a)(3)(B) covers objects that are frames and receivers, not objects that look like frames or receivers. A recent Internet fad illustrates the point. Consider the “cakes that look like food” Internet trend. One could make a cake that looks like a hamburger, just as one could make a cake that looks like a gun frame or receiver. One is “clearly identifiable” as a hamburger, just as the other is “clearly identifiable” as a gun part. But that does not make the former taste like a Big Mac, just as it does not make the latter covered by the GCA. (emphasis added)
The Final Rule is limitless. It purports to regulate any piece of metal or plastic that has been machined beyond its primordial state for fear that it might one day be turned into a gun, a gun frame, or a gun receiver. And it doesn’t stop regulating the metal or plastic until it’s melted back down to ooze. The GCA allows none of this. I concur in the majority’s opinion holding the Final Rule is unlawful. And I further concur that the matter should be remanded to the district court to fashion an appropriate remedy for the plaintiffs.
I suppose the ATF could appeal this to the en banc Fifth Circuit, but looking at the judges who upheld the Second Amendment in this, Cargill v. Garland, and Mock v. Garland, I don’t think it’ll change.
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.
It’s been one month since Israel was viciously attacked by the Iranian proxy ham-ass. And as I pretty much guessed shortly after buildings were lit up with blue and white and Magen Dovids, the worm turned. But I’ve got to admit, it turned in a bigger way that I had anticipated.
Ripping down posters with pictures of kidnapped Israeli (and other nationalities I suspect) hostages all over the world is the new pokemon go game. Some even bring their own scissors, all the better to cut them down with or have them handy in case a Israel supporter is there filming them. Are they ashamed of their actions? Oh HECK no, they’re very proud of them.
The pattern bears some semblance to the Covid vax mania that swept the planet not so very long ago. Air-headed celebrities and the media “honestly” reporting the facts.
Yeah, ok, that was satire, but barely.
I mentioned not that long ago Accuracy in Media was driving around the campus of Haaavaaard with a truck that’s like a mobile billboard showing the names and faces of the leading anti-Semites on campus. It was also parked near the leaders of the 34 student groups homes that signed a letter of condemnation…against Israel for the attack. Saying it was all their fault that over 1400 of their citizens were butchered in horrific fashions and around 238 have been taken hostage. Now what I take issue with, is in the media it was called a “Doxxing truck”, even if the rest of the story was accurate. I do not think that word means what you think it means. There was no “doxxing” involved. These are students who loudly and proudly declared their support and undying devotion to a group that beheads babies, cooks babies alive in an oven in front of it’s tortured, mutilated, but still living parents. These young minds and America’s future are all down with that. They think it’s “sick”….words should mean something. I think it’s sick too and so are they….but I mean it in the real sense of the word, not slang.
The sad thing is, this video could be true. They really are that stupid. So how did the students get that way? Oh, the media for sure.
Do they understand what they are signing on to? In some cases, no. This guy is gutsy.
But also their professors.
Professor and medical doctor
Mohammed Alghamdi is a physician and university professor who helped rip down posters meant to raise awareness of Israeli civilians kidnapped by Hamas terrorists in October 2023.
Hamas kidnapped the civilians, including women and children, during a series of terror attacks and war crimes that left over 1,400 Israelis dead, hundreds kidnapped, as well as thousands wounded. The war crimes include mass murder, torture, rape, beheadings and kidnappings, and were carried out on October 7, 2023. Israel retaliated with a war called “Swords of Iron.”
And this is what they turn out.
Tarawneh
“Do you guys remember the photo of the kids and men laughing and smiling as they sat on top of the Israeli military Jeep captured by our freedom fighters?…How about the photos of the bulldozer breaking through the [Israeli-Gaza] border? Do you remember that picture? And the several other joyful and powerful images which came from the glorious October 7!
And this is the part that’s really bothering me. The number of medical professionals that are all good with this. This one is just a student.
El Massri
Alaa El Massri is a 4th year medical school student at Milano Bicocca University.
On October 7th, as Hamas terrorists were raping young woman lying on top of already murdered corpses, Alaa posted an IG story of Jews were running for their lives and stated “Run Zionists Runnnnn” with a laughing emoji.
How can someone so cruel ever be trusted with human life?
But Canary Mission has whole pages of professionals, medical and otherwise that are supporting a terrorist organization.
Just pulling a few quotes from some of their notables.
“Hamas is not a terrorist group, it is a resistance…everything that they do is justified, every single thing they have done is justified.”
Essra Karam, Twitter, Oct 14 2023
“Essra Karam, pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas, Alhamdullilah [praise God], free, free Palestine from the river to the sea, I hope they all f**king burn in hell.”
Essra Karam, Twitter, Oct 14 2023
“I’m a Palestinian. I have no f**king problem saying I support Hamas because they are the true fighters of Palestine and they’re going to bring back Palestine…”
Essra Karam, Twitter, Oct 14 2023
“@TheRealMikeJr hahha ewww.. ill purposely give all the yahood [Jews] the wrong meds…”
Lara Kollab, Twitter, Jan 2 2012
“People who support Israel should have their immune cells killed so they can see how it feels to not be able to defend yourself from foreign invaders.”
Lara Kollab, Twitter, May 4 2013
“Israel, I’m making it my goal in life to expose you to everyone I meet. If I can twist a biology paper to include your crimes, I will do it.”
Lara Kollab, Twitter, Nov 24 2012
This creature worked at the Cleveland Clinic…
There’s a page of medical professionals…not just doctors and nurses, but pharmacy technicians and similar. What I want to know, is if a hospital or pharmacy has someone like this as their employee, I certainly hope they will be held accountable for the harm they do.
And that brings me back to the mobile billboards, while the future terrorists are howling at possibly having to pay consequences for their proud signing of the petitions, employers do need to know what they are hiring. How is a law firm going to feel if they hire someone as stupid as Katanji Brown-Jackson that doesn’t even know what a woman is? If they hire someone as stupid as KJP (first black gay press secretary, just ask her) who when asked about the appalling rise of anti-Semitic attacks begins to blather on about arabs and islamophobia. How is a hospital going to deal with one of these Al Massris or Alghamdis killing off innocent patients? Hope they get sued into oblivion and that the law firm read Canary Mission first.
But luckily, I have a solution. I’d round up everyone of the pro ham-ass students here on student visas and deport them. The U.S. has ham-ass classified as a terrorist organization. The ones that aren’t on student visas? I have an answer for that as well.
Easy exchange
You know who’s guilty of islamophobia? Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and their fellow Arab states. They don’t want the Falestinians, you would think Western Democracies would scratch their heads and say “Well, huh, wonder why that is? Maybe we should re-think taking them in”. But nooooo.
In the video, which received intense backlash, Tlaib showed protesters in her state as they chanted, “From the river to the sea” — meaning from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea — which would require the total destruction of Israel as a Jewish State.
“From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate,” Tlaib falsely claimed. “My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.”
“Heil Hitler is a beautiful phrase rooted in freedom and unity, just like ‘death to infidels’ and ‘gas the Jews’,” Tlaib explained.
Some on social media questioned the representative for her definition of the phrase.
“I always thought ‘Heil Hitler’ was a salute to the man who instigated one of the worst genocides in human history,” posted X user Brandon Taylor. “But I don’t want to be accused of being a bigot…so…Heil Hitler! I guess…”
At publishing time, members of The Squad rushed to Tlaib’s defense, with Representative AOC accusing Jewish Americans of trying to colonize WWII Germany with their banks and money, and Ilhan Omar yelling “Allahu Akbar” and shooting an AK-47 in the air.
But you know who else called her out? Among others, Kyrsten Sinema. She posted a tweet, or an X or something… but she called her out on it, along with a map showing exactly what “From the river to the sea” means.
Yes, I think money coming from Islamic countries, Iran seems to have more of it these days, among others is partly behind this world wide wipe out the Jews movement, I think Soros is behind it as well.
I’ve heard of several Synagogues that are offering concealed carry classes and forming protection groups. Good, we need them!!
Part of the problem is the West has a Western mindset and doesn’t understand how the arab and islamic mindset works. You can tell this when you hear someone blather about the two-state solution or a cease fire, or worse, sending “humanitarian aid to the poor Falestinians”. You know, like the arsonist, rioter, thug supporting Kamala Harris’s daughter something or other stupid Emhoff who raised a substantial sum of money for ham-ass. These are very stupid, or deluded, or ill-informed people. But they are also people who have helped perpetuate the problem that is rolling down the hill like a bolder to flatten U.S.
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.
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.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
