Lawrence has a good post up where Ian McCollum from Forgotten Weapons delves into the topic of just what an "Assault Rifle" is. Everyone thinks they know all this (I sure did), but they - and I - don't. For example: Assault Shotguns and Assault Pistols? Defined by statute. I did not know that.
Recommended.
Lawrence has a good post up about the recent win (for the Good Guys) striking down firearms prohibitions in Post Offices. This bit is they key:
The big difference here is that previous anti-gun laws overturned in the wake of Bruen have been state laws, but this one is a federal law. Perhaps one slipped by while I wasn’t looking, but I believe that this is the first federal law overturned in the wake of Bruen.
Decision by decision, the Second Amendment is slowly being restored to its proper place in American jurisprudence.
Sure looks that way.
Lawrence has a great analysis. Key bit:
By actually applying the Bruen test, and using it to strike down half of the remaining decree, the courts have giving gun owners at east three-fourths of a loaf here.
We're winning.
Lawrence finds an interesting case in Washington state:
Kirk: “Did the Attorney General bite off a little more than they could chew on this one?”
Serrano: “Oh absolutely…It was like here’s a gift from God. Or, you know definitely not God, but from Bob Ferguson. It’s [a gift] from Satan…He’s going to go into a rural small conservative county and sue someone who allegedly sold over a thousand of these magazines.”
In 12 years, Cowlitz County has gone from mild blue to deep red.
It may be that we are seeing the mainstreaming of gun rights in what has traditionally been a hostile judiciary.
Divemedic has the news. Interesting.
And note that the President at the time this rule went into effect had an (R) after his name.
* My opinion is that bump stocks are dumb and I don't want one, but I also don't want the Fed.Gov changing laws illegally either.
So the Highland Park shooter recorded rap songs about doing a mass shooting. Gosh, why would he rap about that? Could it be all the media coverage about mass shootings? Could he be motivated by the chance to be famous?
Every time there's a mass shooting, the media carpet bombs the airwaves with coverage. It's easy to see why they do so - if it bleeds, it leads and all that. It's about ratings, which means that they're in it for the money.
The Supreme Court has been clear that commercial speech has less First Amendment protection than political speech. And we're constantly reminded by the liberals in every Second Amendment case that "no right is absolute". Well, allrightee then.
It's high time to restrict the ability of the media to report on mass shooting events, because they are clearly encouraging this sort of behavior. Some Common Sense restrictions seem to be pas due here. For example:
Feel free to leave your suggestions for Common Sense Media Control laws in the comments.
No, really.
Long time readers will know that I don't have much use for Mitch. But it is unlikely that today's gun control win - one that drives a stake in "May Issue" licensing - would have happened if he hadn't put Merick Garland's SCOTUS nomination on hold in 2015. Today's 6-3 majority would have at a minimum been 5-4, and the case very well might never have made it to SCOTUS because the justices can also count votes. This might not have been seen by the conservatives on the court as the hill to die on.
Yes, the GOP turn coats will see a new gun control bill passed, thanks to Mitch. But today is without a doubt two steps forward, one step back.
Astute readers will see this as forward progress.
UPDATE 23 JUNE 2022 14:25: David Koppel thinks this ruling is a big deal, and doesn't seem very worried about the new gun control bill. I hope he's right. Clayton Cramer looks into his crystal ball and predicts how the new bill will play out. I expect a lot of litigation on the vague parts, and suspect that Congress knows that most of this will be struck down but wants to be seen as "doing something". Whatevs.
And quote of the day goes to Sebastian:
Long term it’s probably best not to rely on the Courts for protection. Just ask Planned Parenthood how well that’s working out for them. But we can use these reprieves to help repair the gun culture in these jurisdictions if the restrictions lighten things up a little. This is not over. There will never be a death blow to the desire of the nobility to control the serfs. Nonetheless we should use the circumstances presented to us for maximal advantage.
UPDATE 23 JUNE 2022 15:24: I haven't been feeling well, but that's no excuse for not pointing out that the hat tip to the article came in from Dwight via email. He's your go-to guy for obituaries and it sounds like more than a couple of The Usual Suspects will have aneurysms from this.
UPDATE 23 JUNE 2022 16:52: Carl Bussjaeger has a long post analyzing why this is likely a much bigger win for our community than many realize. He seems to think that this may gut (or at least hobble) "Red Flag" laws.
I've seen how this movie ends:
I've linked several times to posts over at the blog Dispatches from TJICistan. TJIC is an outspoken (some might say extremely so) advocate of smaller government. He's also a firearms owner in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. While he owns guns, it appears that he's no longer allowed to possess any:
ARLINGTON (CBS) – A blog threatening members of Congress in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona shooting has prompted Arlington police to temporarily suspend the firearms license of an Arlington man.
It was the headline “1 down and 534 to go” that caught the attention. “One” refers to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in the rampage, while 534 refers to the other members of the U.S. House and Senate.
Police are investigating the “suitability” of 39-year-old Travis Corcoran to have a firearms licenseLet's ignore for the moment how many people were investigated for making similar comments about George W. Bush. Let's look at the "logic" being exercised by the Arlington Po-Po, shall we?
They claim that Corcoran is so dangerous that, while he has done nothing more than put up a blog post, he must be restrained from possessing firearms. However, it appears that it's not worth it for the police to follow him, or stake out his place, or arrest him.
Huh?
Look, guys, if you think that his speech rises to the level of an actual threat of specific harm to specific persons, he should be in jail. If you're not sure, then do the leg work to establish whether it is or not.
Ah, I was so young and optimistic, 11 years ago. After all, we had ferocious conservative Republicans ferociously conserving things. But even then it was clear where this would go:
It would be one thing if the law were applied equally to all. It's not, and it will be applied disproportionately to us, because we hold views considered by some in power to be Double Plus Ungood.
Divemedic says the same, in fewer words. He also has some suggestions on a strategy you can use.
Thanks to the GOP, we're all TJIC now.
There's a reason that they're called the "Stupid Party". And there's a reason that the Democrats are called the "Evil Party".
Since Miguel left Florida, there's been a noticeable drop off in local gun news. Let me step into the breach. The Miami Herald is upset about a Florida law that says if you sue a gun store or manufacturer for legally selling a gun to someone, you can get dinged with a bill for their attorney's fees:
The Guttenbergs have sought to pursue a lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and Sunrise Tactical Supply, a store that sold the Smith & Wesson-made gun used in the mass shooting.But as a precursor, the Guttenbergs went to court to try to get a ruling about whether a state law shields gun makers and sellers from such lawsuits. That is particularly important, they argue, because part of state law could force them to pay attorney fees and other costs if they pursue a lawsuit and ultimately find out that the gun businesses were shielded. A circuit judge, however, dismissed the Guttenbergs’ request for such a ruling, known as a declaratory judgment. That spurred them to go to the appeals court, with their attorney writing in a brief that the Guttenbergs are faced with a “conundrum.”
What "conundrum"?
“Plaintiffs’ declaratory-judgment action is a textbook request for an improper advisory opinion,” Smith & Wesson attorneys wrote in a March brief. “The claims seek answers to hypothetical questions that may possibly arise only in the future. The trial court correctly recognized that plaintiffs are not entitled to a legal opinion preemptively depriving defendants of a potential affirmative defense before plaintiffs even file the claims to which the defense may or may not apply.”
Remember, Nikolas Cruz passed a background check when he bought the gun he used in the Parkland school shooting. The FBI admitted that they dropped the ball, and paid $125M to survivors because they didn't follow up on a tip that would have stopped the attack. The Broward County school system also settled a lawsuit with survivors because they dropped the ball here too. This is all public record (I know, Wikipedia, but even they say this). The only conundrum is why the public officials responsible have not been flogged in the public square for their incompetence.
It seems that the conundrum facing the Guttenbergs is whether to leave Florida for a State with insane gun laws. In the meantime, kudos to the Florida Legislature for passing a law that (a) protects lawful commerce in firearms, and (b) annoys all The Right Sort Of People like the Miami Herald. In the meantime, don't New York my Florida.
Color me skeptical that the Democrats can do much in the current political situation - their margins in Congress are razor thin and rely on a fair number of Democrats from gun friendly states like West Virginia. But we're hearing the usual banging of the gun control drum, so it's time to dust this 4 year old post off. I mean, it's on the right hand side bar for your convenience, but some things need to be said again, and again.
(originally posted March 2, 2018)
It seems that the Judge believes that the Constitution means what it says. Pull quote:
Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where constitutional rights are concerned, California may certainly conceive of a policy that a modern rifle is dangerous in the hands of a criminal, and that therefore it is good public policy to keep modern rifles out of the hands of every citizen. The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.
The ruling will take effect on July 4. The Usual Suspects there say they will appeal.
Lawrence has a long but info-rich post about the Supreme Court's unanimous decision that the local Po-Po can't just grab your guns without a warrant. This seems a good summary:
In some ways this was a very narrowly tailored opinion, in that the Second Amendment was not invoked at all, only the Fourth. And indeed, Justice Samuel Alito’ concurring opinion specifically states that “Our decision today does not address those issues” in relation to the constitutionality of red flag laws. However, the decision was a blow for individual rights against warrentless police seizures in the home. Also, by explicitly including guns as property that is equally protected from such warrentless seizures, the Supreme Court has properly supported Second Amendment rights against the state’s overreach.
Now if they could do something about civil asset forfeitures…
Yup.
I don't think that any single post did more to attract attention to this blog than I Am TJIC, posted this day ten years ago. TJIC had his guns seized by the People's Republic of Arlington (Mass) for posting about the Gabby Giffords shooting. There was no better illustration of how vague gun control laws are applied in Blue states. Now the Congress is promising more of the same* and even Florida has a bunch bad bills under consideration. Ten years ago it looked like gun rights were ascendent, now it looks like we all may end up like TJIC. My comment about Heller and MacDonald looks pretty naive right now, as the Republic slips into Banana Republic territory.
* To answer Sarah Hoyt's question, molon labe is pronounced "moh LOHN la VEH".
(originally posted 19 January 2011)
ARLINGTON (CBS) – A blog threatening members of Congress in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona shooting has prompted Arlington police to temporarily suspend the firearms license of an Arlington man.Let's ignore for the moment how many people were investigated for making similar comments about George W. Bush. Let's look at the "logic" being exercised by the Arlington Po-Po, shall we?
It was the headline “1 down and 534 to go” that caught the attention. “One” refers to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in the rampage, while 534 refers to the other members of the U.S. House and Senate.
Police are investigating the “suitability” of 39-year-old Travis Corcoran to have a firearms license
Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!Eliminationist rhetoric right there. Clearly, the Arlington Police would have seized his firearms. What a sad, degraded state for a once proud Commonwealth. It seems that I got out just in the nick of time.
The whole thing is long but hits center mass. Here's an excerpt:
f) long-term, having a large class of unemployed, under-employed, and broke, hungry, shiftless lumpenproletariat is how revolutions start. Middle classes do not revolt. This year has seen the biggest targeted wipeout of the middle class, worldwide, and shifting them to the lower class, than anything since the Great Depression. And we're still in the early innings of it, as COVID2.0 now appears to be clearing its throat.
g) That's before the blatant disenfranchising of a third of the adults in this country by the most ham-fistedly blatant electoral fraud (outside of every election in Central America, ever) in living memory.
Yup. You should go read the whole thing. And it's been a while since I posted this: New Gingrich on what the Second Amendment is really about. It's long, but really gets rolling at about 5 minutes in. Newt's point is exactly the same one that Aesop makes.
The Continental Congress was an unauthorized, unsanctioned, unlawful, treasonous, and seditious assembly, and every man-jack of them were eventually targeted for arrest and hanging.
With all the discussion of free and fair elections (or lack of same), I find it odd that one particular quote has not been seen lately. It is from Judge Alex Kozinski, in his dissent to the denial to hear Siveria v. Lockyer en banc:
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
With credible accusations of widespread fraud - more than enough to change the outcome of an election, and with the Courts seemingly unwilling to step in to guarantee a public and transparent audit and investigation, this seems to me to be more pertinent than ever.
