Anonymous Web Angel(GFZ)

If you look, there are several YouTube channels that are discussing Thursday’s oral arguments in front of the Ninth Circuit. The tea leaves suggest that the three judge panel will not issue their opinion until after the en banc issues their opinion on Duncan v. Bonta. The panel did not ask questions that make you feel like The People will win this case.

I am continuing to work on the Casinator
[videopack id=”93310″]https://GunFreeZone.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Casinator.mkv[/videopack]
Mostly my issue has been in learning something about drafting. Stupid things like how to layout dimension lines. What the correct size is. How to do hole callouts.

Many things. And don’t get started on GT&D. That is a nightmare but useful.

I recently started using a “highlighter” on quotes. Is that helpful to you?

Here’s hoping you all have a great weekend.

B.L.U.F.
Another explainer about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. More references, more better. Mexico and the blood vultures are so eager to find their way around the PLCAA.
(2000 words)

No, they got away with it because the Connecticut Supreme Court didn’t want to follow the constitution nor congress.

15 U.S.C. §7903: The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Read More

B.L.U.F.
Mexico sued S&W and other manufacturers. They claim that but for those evil gun makers, the cartels would not have guns.

The district court said, “PLCAA applies. Get the out of my courtroom”.

Mexico appealed, the First Circuit says the case can go on. The price of your firearms just went up, again.
(1400 words)

The first pages of the opinion issued by the First Circuit court tell us that The People have lost another round. It takes nearly 30 pages to find out why, though.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was put in place by a bipartisan congress to stop those anti-gunners that were filing nuisance suits against entities in the firearms’ industry. FFLs and manufacturers, primarily.

Since the PLCAA passed, those same anti-gunners have been trying to find a way around it. On the media front, they make the false claim that “only the gun industry can’t be sued”. This has never been true.

The arms industry is the only industry where people attempt to hold the manufacturer responsible for the acts of a third party. The standard example would be a wife suing Ford because her husband was killed by a drunk driver driving a Ford F-150.

Or worse, suing because her husband was that drunk driver and was killed in a traffic incident which he caused.

It doesn’t make sense. The argument is based on two shaky, and false, foundations: 1) There is no need for guns, 2) If they didn’t make guns, nobody would be killed.

I’m reminded of this quote:

Because the horror of Communism, Stalinism, is not that bad people do bad things — they always do. It’s that good people do horrible things thinking they are doing something great.”

[Six Questions for Slavoj Žižek, Harper’s Magazine, November 11, 2011]

And I’m not sure those who wish to disarm us are “good people”. They do horrible things, though.
Read More

On Saturday, I found I needed a couple of items. Both were produced in China. I placed my order on Saturday evening, and they showed up yesterday by noon.

In the ’70s, my mother would have all of our gifts for her parents wrapped and boxed and ready to ship by early November. We would go to the Greyhound bus depot to ship them to Wisconsin from wherever we were in the country. In general, we could get packages by the Post Office in a couple of weeks.

In the ’60s, you could send a letter to a mail order location and “allow four to six weeks for delivery”.

Earlier, it took longer. The time it took to transport goods was much longer than people think.

We had stage coaches and riders to carry packages and mail before then.

But if you needed to move goods, the way to do it was by sea.

As a sailor, you would sign aboard. The ship would load with goods. The ship would sail to its destination. There it would put in for repairs. You could sign aboard for the return trip or stay.

In the ’70s, I read Two Years Before the Mast. It tells one such story. From the time Richard Dana left Boston in 1934 to California, it was two years before he returned. He published his memoir in 1840, describing his voyages.

Whenever I hear this song, I am taken back to that voyage in my mind’s eye. Fighting to keep a ship afloat in foul weather.

Or the NSFW version:

B.L.U.F.
Filler. Yapping about medicine and my kids having a tough time after oral surgery.
(550 words)

It has been a long weekend for us, here at the house.

On Friday, the kids finally got in to see the oral surgeon. A few hours later, they no longer had wisdom teeth.

My youngest has been having a hard time of it. They gave them a total of 5 does of Oxy and 600 mg Ibuprofen.

They were able to eat some soup today. The broccoli in it was too hard, so we had to put it in the blender.

My youngest son only had 3 wisdom teeth to remove. He’s been doing much better than his sibling.

I am so proud of him. He got up this morning, decided he wanted scrambled eggs. He made them himself and made extra for his sibling and made sure they ate some protein.

He spent most of the day on his computer playing games with his friends, yelling and laughing. I think he over did it as he looked a bit sore today.

So what is it about modern medicine? Well, first and foremost, it is freaking amazing.

While both kids are sore, there was no pain while their teeth were extracted.

They have antibiotics and pain meds for recovery. The odds of something bad happening is nil.

We saved up the money to cover the parts of the surgery that insurance didn’t cover. It was still something that we could do.

My wife has had 4 knee replacements. We are not bankrupt from medical bills.

I know that there are people who are not as fortunate as us.

On the other hand, I have a hard time with the people who say that they cannot afford health care.

I have a friend who has not had insurance in years. When her appendix burst, it was handled on an emergency basis. They took care of her. They didn’t worry about money until afterward.

When they learned she had no insurance, they got her to the finance people, and they basically paid for that surgery from their uninsured patients fund.

While they were taking pictures of her appendix before starting the surgery, another organ photo bombed the x-rays. The radiologist, with an abundance of caution, said it could be cancer, and she had to have it inspected.

That was another expensive procedure, as they had to take x-rays from the inside. Again, it cost her very little.

Years ago, I watched a show where a couple was trying to live as “poor folk”. The man got a job and the woman stayed at home, I think. She was prone to UTIs. She got a UTI. She knew it was a UTI.

Instead of scheduling an appointment to see a doctor or going to an urgent care clinic, they decided to go to the Emergency room.

They reported that it cost hundreds of dollars just to get antibiotics.

I’ve been there too. A friend without insurance got an infection. $100 at the urgent care clinic and they walked out with a bottle of antibiotics after the doctor reviewed her symptoms.

There are options. Make plans if you need to.

(It was a babble or pictures of ice and snow while telling Miguel that he should be happy he lives in the warm country)

B.L.U.F.
Don’t let the government cheat! Plain text first. Know what it means. K.I.S.S. it. Is it an arm? Are they a member of The People? Do they want to keep or bear?

Done!
(1550 words)

While Justice Thomas said that the inferior courts had gone one step too far in their two-step analysis of Second Amendment challenges, the Heller Court did lay out a two-step analysis.

Heller said that the first step was to determine if the proposed conduct implicated the plain text of the Second Amendment as understood at the founding. The second step was for the state to provide historical analogues of the modern infringement from the time of the founding.

The inferior courts cheated. They took the Heller methodology and just assumed that the modern infringement was unconstitutional without deciding.

This allowed them to say, “We will assume an ‘assault weapon’ ban is assumed to be unconstitutional. Moving on, we look at how bad your rape is, if it is bad bad, then we’ll use strict scrutiny. If it is only a bad rape, then we’ll use intermediate scrutiny. The government then has the burden to show that they have a good reason to be raping you.”

Justice Thomas slapped the inferior courts around. He explained that the inferior courts, when deciding a Second Amendment challenge, must first determine if the proposed conduct touches fingers with the plain text of the Second Amendment. If it does, then the inferior court moves to the second and final step, can the state prove a history and tradition of regulations from the founding which are analogous to the modern infringement.

The Heller Court analyzed every word and phrase of the Second Amendment. They have laid out the meaning of the plain text of the Second Amendment. There is no “It depends on what your definition of is, is”. It is defined.

The plain text of the Second Amendment is implicated if a member of The People wants to keep or bear arms.

Is means IS!

Read More

The short version: A three judge panel of the Third Circuit court found that 18, 19, and 20 year olds are part of the people.

One judge doesn’t think so.

Circuit Judge Restrepo does not believe that infringing on the right of adults to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.

His argument focuses on the phrase “The People”. However, there is no dispute that there is some age threshold before which the protection of the Second Amendment does not apply. I’m not sure if this is true.

I’m not double-checking his citations. That could be an error on my part.

The public in 1791 did not understand those under 21 to be part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

This is a strong statement, his argument:

The Majority said, The words “the people” in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18-to-20-year-olds,….

From this, it follows that there are some people who are not adults and thus are not part of The People. Since those that were under the age of 21 were considered minors from before the founding and through Reconstruction were considered minors, they were not adults and thus not part of The People.

Restrepo: there is evidence that the Founding-era public would not have understood the text of the Second Amendment to extend its protection to those under 21.

At the time of the founding, a person under the age of 21 was considered an infant under the law, and a minor in common speech. Multiple citations to legal definitions from the Founding.

Ok, it took a bit to get here, but the Majority does provide the clues to get there.

Under Heller, as affirmed in Bruen, we first consider if the proposed conduct implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment. If it does, then the government carries the burden of providing a history and tradition of regulations matching the current infringement.

Those two steps, “plain text” and “historical analysis” are very distinct.

Under the plain text of the Second Amendment, every American’s right to keep and bear arms is protected. Be that a felon, a law-abiding citizen, a drunkard, or a newborn infant. That is the plain text.

Since the plaintiffs (good guys), are a member of The People, and their proposed conduct implicates the Second Amendment, they have satisfied the first step in Heller.

The dissent argues that are not part of the people. Since they are not part of the people, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to them. Since the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to them, there is no need for the government to prove a history or tradition.

This is moronic circular reasoning.

The plain text is implicated. The government now has the burden to prove, by us of regulations from the founding era, that there is a history and tradition of denying those under 21 the right to keep and bear arms.

The reasons our founding fathers use might be that those under 21 are not part of the people. Or it could be some other reason, but the state still bears the burden of providing those historical regulations.

Judge Restrepo’s argument reminds me of the “you ain’t the militia, the Second only applies to the militia” reasoning of the late twentieth century through 2008 courts.

It is difficult not to get caught in that sort of reasoning. The founding fathers might have considered those under 21 to be minors or infants. But that doesn’t matter. It only matters if there are regulations denying them rights.

In addition, we have amendments after the founding that changed that definition. Regardless of what the founding fathers considered a minor, we modified our constitution to make 18 year-olds adults in the eyes of the law. To deny that truism is to say that only white, landed, men are protected under the Constitution.

I hope you enjoy this short one.

[xCiteBib]

Thank you for the replies to “The Argument”. The person I was speaking with was listening. He wasn’t anti-gun, nor was he regurgitating anti-gun talking points.

This is different from some of the people who stuck their oar in. The people who said things like, “We need to ban assault weapons, those large bullets are too dangerous.” or something like that. Another was, “There is no reason for large capacity magazines.” Those people aren’t listening nor are they open to learning. They might be, but that is a different discussion.

I don’t do the car ban thing. The response argument is always, “But we NEED cars. You don’t need a gun.”

My wife loves me dearly. She reads my articles. Her eyes glaze over when I quote too much from a case document. Trying to explain to somebody without the papers in hand how the Second, Seventh, and Ninth twist words is futile, in my opinion.

My “Why are you advocating for breaking the law?” is my attempt to address this.

The “slippery slope” argument is difficult to make. In my opinion, the better way of addressing it is to ask, “What is your exit plan if your proposal doesn’t work as you think it will?”

I have had luck in changing people’s feelings. I handed a NYC boy a magazine with more than the allowed number of bullets. He took it, I grabbed it back. “You can’t have that! Your state says that having that will turn you into a mass murder.” I took one round out, handed it back. “Ok, now we are safe.”

The absurdity of that was enough for him to open his mind and actually think.

Sometimes facts are not about accepting or disregarding, sometimes it is about interpretation. The problem with that is exactly the same as with “We’ve never tried real Communism with me in charge. If I’m in charge, it will be a utopia on earth.”

We have had an excellent opinion out of the Third Circuit court. You can go listen to Mark Smith talk about it, or I’ll give you a write-up tomorrow.

I’m eagerly awaiting this week’s comments. Please comment.

I attended a get-together on Saturday. One of the other people there started a discussion about firearms and the Second Amendment. Since we were in an area where there were not a bunch of people, and because he was acting in good faith and with an open mind, we engaged in a discussion.

As most such discussions go, it is difficult to pin somebody down. There is a heartfelt need to “do something”.

Some of the issues that I had were his inability to accept that we already know that bad things happen when we give an inch.

A big issue for him was training. The standard, “You are ok, and he is ok, but there are idiots out there that do dumb things, they should have training.”

My response was that a training requirement leads to de facto bans. He claimed that we don’t know that they will. When I listed the states that had done this recently, that was not accepted as proof.

He drove forward with the idea that we could write a law that would be safe from that type of meddling. He invited me to propose language for that.

I went home unhappy with my performance.

Having thought about it a bit, I think my argument should be more along the lines of:

Why do you want to break the law?

Every one of the people that I have discussions with has some sort of acceptable way of working around the Second Amendment. They argue that I should “follow the law” if they pass an unconstitutional law. At the same time, they are unwilling to obey the law, themselves.

Often they want to engage in hypotheticals where they can make such a law.

One of my standard responses is, “If you would like to do that, then you need to pass an amendment. That amendment will then allow you to pass such laws.” I did use it. He’s response was, “You would oppose that?” “Absolutely, totally.”

I then explained that they are pre-existing rights. That the Second Amendment is there to protect those rights. The Second Amendment does not grant those rights.

Regardless, I’m left feeling unsatisfied with my performance. I need more practice.

For my wife’s birthday, a few years ago, I got us tickets to see Scott Bradly’s Postmodern Jukebox. It is the only concert that I have ever paid to see.

He started on YouTube making covers of songs in different styles. In this cover of the Friends theme, they provide it in styles from the 1920s through the actual Rembrandt’s sing their version.

But this is the song I wanted to bring to you. It is one of my wife’s favorite songs. We did see Joey in concert.

I once played a Postmodern Jukebox song at the office, my office mates went down the rabbit hole, and we listened to them for a good solid week.