Chris Johnson

This is the current version of section §922(g). The word “felon” does not appear. All definitions are included within the list.

As you read on, notice that we have gone from actually crossing state lines to “affecting commerce”. This is a huge power grab by the federal government. The Constitution authorizes them to regulate interstate commerce.

The power grab is that they now claim the can regulate anything that might affect interstate commerce.
This is not how it started.

This does not seem to include as much as the current law does.

In October 1968, the law changed

Here we see that they have explicitly excluded misdemeanors with possible imprisonment of less than two years. The old version was greater than one year.

Read that last line carefully. In November 1968, a person who was a “prohibited person” could no receive any firearm or ammunition which had been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce. They could still keep and bear arms. They could not buy or be given guns that crossed state lines.

This means that it was perfectly legal for a prohibited person to keep all the firearms they owned before becoming prohibited and they could manufacture firearms for their use. All legal.

It also meant, that if they were to buy direct from a manufacturer, that would be legal. For example, if they lived in New Hampshire, they could go to the Sig Store and purchase a gun manufactured by Sig in NH.

Section (h) was rewritten to reference section (g) for who was prohibited. We also see that it is no longer receiving a firearm that is a crime, it is in possessing.

We still see that the limitation is on firearms that cross state lines. We see this in many federal laws. They will reference something crossing state lines being regulated. This is because that is all the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate.

These changes were part of “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act”. I just love it when something that is about protecting my rights adds more limits on rights. Yeah, I know, bad people.

In 1996, §§ 921-922 were amended to add definitions and text to prohibit who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence..

In 1998, in an “Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations” bill, they changed the definition of an illegal alien.

Conclusion

1) reading lawsuits is easy compared to reading “Public Laws”. They write bills like patch files. Instead of showing us the new version with strike through and underline to show removed and new text, they say things like (I) by inserting “transfer of a firearm to or” before “receipt”; and (II) by striking “(g) or (n)” and inserting “(d), (g), or (n) (as applicable)”.

I read that stuff all the time, but I have tools that make it easy to see the changes.

2) The law expands little by little, infringing more and more. What starts with something that feels reasonable ends with something that is totally unconstitutional.

This is an interesting and challenging case, for me.

This is a Constitutional challenge to Mahmoud being detained and then deported. His claim is that this is a violation of his First and Fifth Amendment protected rights. Because it is a violation of his rights, the court should grant him relief.

Mahmoud is an Arab that claims to be a Palestinian. He entered the United States in December 2022 on a student visa to study for a Master’s degree at Columbia University in New York. He completed that degree in December 2024 and is going to graduate in May 2025. He married in November 2024 and got a green card.

He was granted a green card because he was married to a US citizen. He is still an alien, just not illegal. He has not overstayed his visa, nor is he required to leave when his visa expires.

His lawyer describes his actions in this way:

This describes his actions as speech. Regardless of how reprehensible that speech might be, it is still protected. The First Amendment protects reprehensible speech, not just the words we want to hear. It is easy to believe in “free speech” if the only allowed speech is that which we agree with.

This case is seeking the following relief:

1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter
2. Declare that the state violated Mahmoud’s First amendment and Fifth Amendment protected rights
3. To keep Mahmoud in New York
4. Release Mahmoud
5. Pay Mahmoud’s legal fees

Item 3 is mooted because Mahmoud was out of New York before the case was filed. In a later filing they requested that he be returned to New York.

So we look at the Constitutional challenge. One of the things to note is that not all the Constitution applies to everyone. Some apply to Citizens and some apply to “the people”. The rights limited to citizens are called out by the term “citizen”. The rest of the time the founders use the terms “the people”, “person”, and “the accused.”

The Supreme Court has issued many opinions that restrict “The People” to those with a strong connection to the community politic.

With these in mind, it seems clear that Mahmoud is a member of the people. His rights are protected by most of the Constitution.

Is he challenging a federal law prohibiting the free exercise of or abridgment of his speech? Not directly.

Instead, he challenges the law as applied to him, His claim is that he can’t speak while detained and that the threat of detention has a chilling effect on his ability to speak freely.

The state has not justified his detention in court documents — yet. Instead, they are fighting the most relevant parts first. Bluntly, I don’t care if this asshole is deported or rotting in a jail cell. He’s not out there intimidating the people of the United States.

What the state did was they revoked his visa and his green card.

When can a green card be revoked?

What this means is that the state need only prove that Mahmoud was part of or assisting a terrorist group. Hamas is a designated terrorist group.

Conclusion

The left loves to talk about hate speech. They love it because it allows them to justify their violence. Hate speech is always in the eye of the offended.

“Violent” speech is violence, according to the left.

Violence can be countered with violence.

Therefore, you saying something that they disagree with is hate speech, which in turn is violence, which means they can punch you.

In the other direction, any real, physical violence they engage in is “just protests” and is “speech” protected by the Constitution.

They are going to lose this one. I’ve seen to many good filings from this administration to believe they aren’t going to win. Maybe not at the district level with all the rogue inferior judges, but they will win higher up.

This case is distributed for Conference on 3/28/2025. This adds an interesting twist on our Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court.

Could this be combined with the Snope (assault weapon bans) and Ocean State Tactical (magazine bans)?

This case is where New York State’s Bruen tantrum replaced “proper cause” with “good moral character” and then proceeded to make almost all of New York State a sensitive place.

We are living in interesting times.

What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

It appears that Mel Gibson is a prohibited person.

If you read §922(g) closely, you will find that prohibited person includes people who have not been convicted of a felony nor any of the things we might consider reason to prohibit.

It gets better, under Rahimi, a person can only be prohibited temporarily and when found to be violent.

This means that many of the cases challenging the §922(g) sections are likely to win on the merits. The Range case for example. A non-violent felon. He pleaded guilty to fraud. He did not claim income from his lawn care side hustle when he was asking for financial help.

He served no time. It has been many years since Range pleaded guilty to this crime.

Oh, it wasn’t a felony when he pleaded guilty.

Over time, crimes that were not “felonies” under §922 have become felonies. I.e., if you can be jailed for the crime for more than a year, then it is a felony under §922, even if you serve no time.

Mel Gibson pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault on his ex-girlfriend. He paid a $500 fine and put it behind him.

Turns out that this misdemeanor assault actually triggers §922(g) and he is now a prohibited person.

He has been attempting to get his Second Amendment protected rights back.

Pam Bondi?

A lawyer at the DoJ was fired. She ran to the New York Times to whimper about how unfair it was. About how she was the victim of the Evil Trump administration. She was doing the right thing.

What was she claiming to be the “right thing”? She claimed that disobeying her superiors was the right thing. In particular, she “couldn’t sign off” on a DoJ’s working group working to get gun rights restored to The People.

Yep. She mentioned that she was told to work to restore Mel Gibson’s rights and refused. She seems to feel that nobody should have gun rights, and that keeping as many people from having the right to keep and bear arms is the “right thing” to do.

One of the great things about following people on X is that you get news faster and from different points of view.

One of the worst things about X is that you get idiot NPC talking points dumped into your feed constantly.

For the last three weeks, every weekend, there is a spat of NPCs telling me that Trump has gone golfing. That he has gone golfing every weekend since he took office. That his golfing has cost some number of millions of dollars. The number is the same across every post.

This week, the talking points included that Trump was golfing while there were fires on Long Island. How can he be so cruel. And he went golfing last weekend during the fires in North and South Carolina.

Last weekend it was about how the fires in the Carolina’s were happening despite the claims of good forest management. Claims that there wasn’t water to fight the fires. While showing the same video of firefighters using water to fight the fires.

The biggest NPC talking point has been on “Tax cuts for Billionaires.” The claim is that Trump is taking money away from veterans, the sick, and the elderly to give to his “billionaire friends”.

If you open the curtain and peek behind it, you find that they are lying.

So let’s do a little numbering.

We are going to look at somebody making $12000/year, $50,000/year, $100,000/year, $500,000/year, and a million dollars per year.

We use a progressive tax rate, so as your income goes up, so does your tax rate.

Somebody with an income of $1,000,000 pays 328 thousand dollars in taxes. If everybody got a 1% tax cut, he would get to keep $3,281 of his money. The person making $50k per year would get to keep $500 of his money. Oh my goodness.

So what are these huge tax cuts that “Trump gave his billionaire friends?” The Trump tax cuts apply to everybody. The NPCs claim that everybody getting tax cuts is not fair because a millionaire gets $3k back, but regular folk only get $500 back. This is so horrible, that they proposed an amendment that would have increased the tax rate of people making more than $999,999.

This would have added another tax bracket. They are literally saying that if we don’t raise the taxes on those making more than $999,999 we are giving a tax cut.

It doesn’t make sense to anybody except NPCs.

This entire talking point also avoids the question of how billionaires make their money.

If I was working a full-time job and pulling in a billion dollars per year, I would be charging $480,769.23/hour.

It isn’t happening. A million dollars per year income is only $480/hour.

Yes, there are some professions that charge at the $500 to $1000 per hour rate, but they are generally not taking it all home. Instead, that hourly rate goes into paying for many people.

What a millionaire does is they make money by investing. Pretend you made $174,000 in 2024. After paying all your bills, you might take home $50 to $75 thousand for fun stuff.

Now, supposed you took that $50k and invested it in a stock, like $TEM in January 2025 at $32/share. If you sold it at the end of February 2025 at $89.44 you would have made a profit of $89k. Not a bad return over the course of a month.

This is a short-term capital gain which gets taxed at your as above, according to your tax bracket. On the other hand, if you hold that stock for a full 12 months and then sell it, you would only get taxed at 15%, not 24%. That is a 9% savings in taxes.

If you were to have a taxable income of over $533k/year, then your rate would be 20% on that $89k, not 37%. That translates to savings of $15,140.

Trump is not talking about cutting the capital gains taxes. He is talking about income tax changes.

This is the same language game that congress critters make every year. “We made cuts to the budget!” translation, “We aren’t going to spend as much as we wanted to. We are only spending $500,000 more, not the $3.3 million more we wanted”

A cut is when the amount spent this year is less than the amount spent last year.

I believe that I managed to lose some of my article. Still, it is just a rant.

Or “You don’t know what you don’t know.”

The short of this is that I’ve been building PCs for years. They are LEGO blocks. You make sure the parts will fit together, and it all just works.

As an example, I “knew” that LGA sockets were for Intel CPUs. Last night I learned that LGA just means the motherboard socket has the pins. PGA means the CPU holds the pins.

How did I learn this? I was researching AMD CPU sockets and learned that the AM4 socket was of the PGA style, while the AM5 socket is of the LGA type.

I didn’t know what I didn’t know.

We run a local data center. It is still a work in progress. We have enough disk space, but not enough redundancy. We have some compute servers, but not enough.

We try to do some upgrade every month, trying to improve things. The last improvement was another node in the Ceph Cluster.

After spending weeks researching, I found a 4 bay NAS enclosure that took Mini-ITX motherboards. This felt just about perfect.

It uses a flex style power supply, which is balanced for the actual load of 4 HDD and a motherboard. 350 Watts is what I went with. Thus, it draws less power than older machines.

Finding a Mini-ITX board was another research hell. What I wanted was MB with 4 SATA 3.0 ports, 1 or more SFP+ ports, one gigabit Ethernet port, at least 16 GB of memory and NVMe support for 512 GB of storage.

I couldn’t find one. I haven’t given up, but I haven’t found one yet.

After searching, I found a Mini-ITX MB with an LGA 1155 socket, 4 SATA2.0 ports, a 10/100 Ethernet Port, 2 DDR3 slots (16 GB), and a PCIe slot.

This might seem low end, but it meets our needs. HDDs only require 3 GB/s to keep up. We would need 3.0 if we were using SSDs.

The 10/100 is useless for moving data, but meets our needs for a management port. All in all, a good choice.

When all the parts arrived, I couldn’t get the MB installed. The fan was too tall. I got a better cooler that was a low profile style. When that came in, I installed the board. It was painfully tight getting everything in. Took me over an hour to get all the cables hooked up just right.

Everything went well until I went to put the cover back on. At that point, I found the cover didn’t fit “because the case had the motherboard too close to the edge.”

I fixed that in the machine shop. Grinders and cut off wheels to the rescue.

Everything goes together.

After everything is configured and running, I slap a drive into the case and it works. Wonderful. Final step? Install the SFP+ network card.

It doesn’t line up. The damn thing doesn’t line up with the slot in the back.

After mulling it over for way to long, I made the cut-out in the back wider and moved the standoffs. Machine shop to the rescue.

Except I had a bad network card. Easily fixed via a replacement. No big deal.

After over a month of fighting this thing, making massive changes to the case. Taking it entirely apart to get the motherboard in, the machine is now in production.

Yesterday the motherboard for an upgrade arrived. The case I bought to hold it had the PCI slot moved over. This looks like it will all just work.

Except that when I go to install the MB, I can’t get it to fit into the case. No big deal, I’ll take this case apart too.

But the board doesn’t line up. It doesn’t line up with the standoffs. It doesn’t line up with the back slot. It doesn’t even line up with the onboard I/O baffle.

At that point, I measured my Mini-ITX board. It should be 170mmx170mm. This board is not. It is 0.8 inches to wide. It isn’t a Micro-ITX nor is it a Mini-ITX. It is some none standard PoS.

I’m spitting mad at this point. I’ll put everything back in boxes until the new MB arrives. When it does arrive, I’ll be able to retire an older box that has been holding this data center back.

Everything now fits.

It wasn’t the case that was the issue with the last build. It was the motherboard. Time to update the reviews I wrote.

Years ago, I was in conversations with a lady, we agreed to meet for coffee and then a movie. When I arrived, she was busy with other people. I waited. When she was finally done with the others, I asked her which movie she was interested in seeing.

“I’ve decided I don’t want to go to a movie with you.”

My reply was, “I’m disappointed with you.”

I walked away. Later, I heard through the grapevine that my sentence had nearly broken her. “I’m disappointed” carries great weight, emotionally.

For years, I’ve felt like I’m in a political battle where the other side gets to decide what rules I fight by and what rules they fight by, but their rules are not the same as mine.

I remember every time somebody called me a murder for wanting to keep my guns. Every time I was blamed because some asshole killed children. I was to blame for the blood spilled in the cities.

If only I would consent to common-sense, reasonable gun laws. It is all about safety.

After Sandhook, I was hearing the same things again. One of the people doing it showed up on my Facebook page.

I proceeded to call her a heartless subhuman for wanting children to die. Why wouldn’t she agree that it was just common sense to have teachers armed to kill assholes that would harm our children? How could she be so selfish?

Every attack that had ever been leveled at me, I threw back at this lady.

Turns out that his lady was a friend’s aunt. They came to me and asked me to tone it down. To back off because I was being hurtful. She was a teacher and had spent her entire career helping children.

I did. I took the highroad, again.

This is where we always went.

When Trump v0.1 came on the scene, the Democrats loved him. They loved him because they knew he was a Democrat at heart. They wanted him to win the primary because he would be easier to beat than Hillary.

Trump v0.9 showed up when he became the Republican candidate for President. The Democrats turned on him like a pack of hyenas.

Trump v1.0 started when he took office the first time.

One of the reasons he won that time was because he was fighting back. He was calling the left out for their lies. But he used belittling terms for them. He fought from the gutter where the left lives.

Ally was so upset about his words that she couldn’t accept his deeds. Almost every interaction regarding Trump was her telling me about something he said that was mean.

She was still part of that leftist mindset. That mindset that looks for a reason to throw a person out of the tent. If a person is in perfect lockstep with the sheep of the left, then they are kicked out.

Every conservative was unacceptable to her because they had done something that disqualified them.

She has come around. But some of those old habits die hard.

We got into a big argument after a Republican representative introduced the mentally ill representative as “The representative of ??? Mr. ???” sorry, I don’t recall the names.

When I was talking at dinner, I mentioned this and mentioned that I got a chuckle over this.

She was very upset with me. “I expect better of you.”

From her perspective, I was being mean to that ill person. It would have been easy for the Republican to introduce the other member as “Representative X”. No Mr. No Mrs. No Miss. Just “Representative”.

Yeah, she could have. But I was pleased to have her punch back.

But everything she observes from her new group gets that same, “I expect better of my team” treatment.

I read Alito’s dissent. It didn’t pull any punches. Thomas joined him in his dissent. When those two are in agreement, then the right thing to do is what they are saying.

Barrette didn’t agree with them. She voted with the majority to deny a stay pending appeal.

Having mulled over it for a few days, I have to agree with Amy. And it is one of the reasons why she is a good choice for the Court.

I do not want somebody who votes the “right” way on my issues. I want somebody who respects the law and follows the constitution, regardless of where it leads.

I am sure that it was hard for her to withstand the powerhouse that is the Thomas-Alito team.

The short of it was that Roberts made the issue moot. This saved everybody time. It kept the status quo for a bit longer. And it put the case on the correct footing for an appeal of the preliminary injunction. In addition, even the denial was a win because it slapped the inferior courts square in the face with their rogue behavior.

I expect more of my justices. Amy gave me more. It hurt, to be sure, but she did the right thing.

When I see Trump 2028 I know it is not going to happen. The push for allowing a president to have three terms happened near the end of the Obama presidency. The left wanted their chosen one to have another term.

I didn’t like the idea then, I don’t like the idea now.

Because I don’t see any real push to get Trump a third term, I know that Trump 2028 is a troll. It is a good troll because the left can’t treat it as a joke. They can’t because they were serious when they were trying to get Obama a third term.

When I see “Trump 2028” posted on the idiot signs held by Democrats during the address to the joint session of Congress, it makes me smile even more.

It trolls on so many levels, and it makes me chuckle. It isn’t being pushed by anybody seriously. J.D. 2028 is what I’m actually hearing. The serious faces of the people holding idiot signs makes it work more. The fact that if it happened, the Democrats would have an even bigger meltdown. There would be accusations all over the place.

And not a single Democrat would admit that they had seriously looked into it for their guy, for Obama.

As a practical matter, getting a third term for a president requires a Constitutional amendment. If somebody were to propose one, I would be on the phone to my Senators and Representative to tell them to vote against the amendment.

Until that happens, this is a great troll. I’m not going to let realities get in the way of good humor.

As many have said, the left can’t meme.

I wrote this morning’s post last night, before Mark Smith had posted.

I felt I got it right.

It feels wonderful to hear him saying the same things I was trying to write about.

I am NOT a Lawyer. That being said, I do analyze large systems all the time. And as my mentor used to say, “The justice system is just a system.”

History of the case:

January 20, 2025: EO 14,169 was signed by President Trump. “It is the policy of the United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President”

This is the long-term goal. No more foreign aid that is at odds with the President’s foreign policy.

for programmatic efficiency and consistency with United States foreign policy…immediately pause new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds to foreign countries

Stop all foreign aid payments until we have reviewed it for alignment with current foreign policy. Don’t enter into any new contracts while paused.

To you and I, this seems like a logical and reasonable situation. There was a short fuse put on the order of 90 days. Each agency had only 90 days to evaluate the situation and report.

Within the EO, there is an allowance for the Secretary of State to issue waivers. If some entity had a need, and it aligned with our foreign policy, they could get a waiver now to receive funds.

February 10, 2025: Plaintiffs/Respondents (Bad guys) challenged the pause. The alleged violations of the APA and the Constitution.

February 13, 2025: The District court (inferior to the circuit courts which are inferior to the Supreme Court) granted relief. The court did not give the government (good guys) an opportunity to file an opposition brief.

The court said that a pause wasn’t arbitrary or capricious, the government had not considered that aid recipients might be butt hurt.

Having issued the TRO, the State Department started issuing payments again. The difference was that before issuing a payment, they were evaluating how that “aid” aligned with our foreign policy.

The order, however, allowed the agency defendants to “take action to enforce the terms of particular contracts, including with respect to expirations, modifications, or terminations pursuant to contractual provisions.”

The government obeyed the rules as set out by the court. The plaintiffs (still the bad guys) did not see the faucet of cash open, so went whining back to the court claiming that the government was violating the court’s order.

February 24, 2025: One of the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the court’s order.

February 25, 2025: The court held another hearing. The court did not give the state time to file a written response to the emergency motion. The court then granted the motion from the bench. (Not a written order, yet)

The court did not address multiple issues the state brought up.

Instead, the court ordered the state to pay all invoices and letters of credit drawdown by 2359 on the 26th.

This amounted to around $2billion. The order ignored due dates, standard accounting practices of verification, and other aspects of the contract.

When I send out an invoice, my clients have a certain amount of time to pay the invoice. Normally, 30 days.

Government contracts often have longer delays built in. IIRC our contracts with the government had 90 day due dates.

What the court ordered was that the government had to pay invoices received by January 24th even if the invoice wasn’t due for many days.

After this hearing and new order, the government filed for an emergency stay pending appeal to the D.C. Circuit court.

The motion asked for an administrative stay by 1300 on the 26th. If not an administrative stay, the government wanted a ruling by 1600. These time frames are very fast, but the government was given about 36 hours to issue 2 Billion Dollars.

February 26, 2025: The Circuit court asked the plaintiffs (bad guys, still) to file a response by 1300. This is the deadline the state put forth for an administrative stay.

The circuit court didn’t issue the stay, nor did they rule on the motions. Instead, they dragged their feet. With time running out, the government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Just before the midnight deadline, Chief Justice Roberts issued an administrative stay. The Court then asked for a response by 1200 on February 28th.

February 28, 2025: Everybody got their briefings in. The state by normal rules can reply to the response.

March 3, 2025: The state filed their reply to the response to the motion.

March 5, 2025: The application was referred to the Court. An opinion was later issued.

Analysis

There is so much going on and so many moving parts, it is easy to get lost without picking up the minutia.

What we wanted was for the Supreme Court to roll up a newspaper and swat the inferior courts across the snoot a few dozen times. They didn’t.

The district court’s order was labeled a TRO, it was acting as a Preliminary Injunction, and the modified order granted relief that before the adversarial part of the case took place.

Said differently, the plaintiffs want the money to flow. The government says that they have paused spending. The plaintiffs seek the relief of having the money flow. The court’s original order said, “The money must flow.” The government started spending. The plaintiffs claimed that it wasn’t fast enough. The court “modified” their original order and said, “let the money flow”.

Thus, the court actually granted the relief the plaintiffs wanted.

What the Supreme Court’s opinion said was: The application is denied

This is the takeaway. The government has to start the money flowing again.

But here are the important parts that aren’t being noticed in some of the postings I’ve seen (all).

This is an order to the inferior court to change their order and correct deficiencies.

What the government (good guys) were asking for was time to present their case. The inferior district court stripped them of that right. They were not allowed to respond in writing. They were not given time to make appeals safely. In addition, they were ordered to do things which they cannot recover from.

If they pay some of these bills, there is no clawback available to the government. We know that the entities receiving that money will disperse it so fast heads will spin.

I don’t know what Barrett was thinking, but she sided with the denial of the application. I don’t trust Chief Justice Roberts to take risks. He much prefers the safer path, the more limited opinions. It always surprises me when he does join with
Thomas and the rest of that team.

But, in my opinion, the big takeaway is that the inferior court has to consider feasibility. They have to make sure that their order is clear.

The other part of this is that this should take the case out of the TRO state and into the Preliminary Injunction state. While a case is in the TRO state, there are limits in what can be appealed.