Chris Johnson

There were several cases GVRed at the end of June. This is one of the methods the Supreme Court uses to communicate with the inferior courts.

What they are doing is telling the inferior courts, all of them, that this opinion we issued, applies to these sorts of cases.

The Loper Bright case was the death of Chevron. Chevron was the horrible opinion out of the Supreme Court that said, if the agency administrating a law thinks it is ambiguous, then it is ambiguous. If it is ambiguous, the courts must use the agency’s interpretation of the law.

Since the Chevron opinion, the Supreme Court has been attempting to “fix it”. The problem was that they needed the inferior courts to do rational, reasonable things. Too many of the inferior courts did not do reasonable, rational things.

Chevron became a catch-all for any power hungry agency.

The Loper Bright opinion told the inferior courts, “Stop avoiding your job. You are the final arbitrator on questions of law, not any party. Get out there and read the law and do the right thing.”

Judge Aileen M. Cannon did exactly this.

Trump’s team had filed a motion to dismiss his case based on the theory that Jack Smith did not have the authority to bring charges.

While everybody has been calling Jack Smith “The Special Counsel”, that is a position that must exist.

The Trump motion points out that the Constitution defines how “Officers of the United States” are appointed. Those officers are separated into “inferior” or “principal” officers.

Principal officers must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Jack Smith argues that he is an inferior officer.

While inferior officers can be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in Heads of Departments. — U.S. Constitution

The state, through Jack Smith, argued that his appointment was lawful because it was done under an ambiguous law. Since it is an ambiguous law, the DoJ was able to say, under Chevron that of course they got it right.

But with Chevron dead, the Court looked at the law and determined that the DoJ did not have the authority to create the position. Since they could not create the position, Jack Smith had no special standing. I.e., his authority was no more than yours or mine.

This is another win for us. And this case was decided without a need for looking at Presidential Immunity for official acts.

I like to learn new things. My goal is to be able to fix anything at The Fort At #4. A large part of that is learning how to turn wood.

This is not as difficult as it could be because I have experience with a metal lathe. The concepts are similar, but very different.

In metal working, we look at the type of metal, the amount of metal we want to remove, and the speed at which we wish to do it. This informs us of the type of tool to use.

Steel likes larger nose radius than aluminum. The chip breakers are different, the rake is different. The cutter shape defines speeds and feeds. What tool I pick is dependent on what I am doing.

In wood turning, there are two major types, “spindle” and “bowl”. A spindle is a long, round thing. Think of round legs on chairs, or the spindles in the back of a chair. Round chair rungs. All of those are spindle turnings.

Bowl turning is just about would it sounds like. You are carving out wood from the center of a round, thick piece of wood. The difference is grain orientation.

In spindle turning, the grain is oriented end to end. In bowl turning, it is side to side.

When cutting the outside of a spindle, you are always cutting away the along the grain. The easy way. In bowl turning, you are cutting side grain, then end grain, then back again.

The tools are different. A bowl gouge and a spindle gouge have different shapes and different sturdiness.

Having watched the video of Trump being shot, my first thoughts were of “Thank God he survived the attempt.”

My third though was of grief for the person in the audience who was killed and the other that was injured. This asshole, shooting at Trump, didn’t give a shit who was hit by his shots. In his zeal to kill Trump, he killed a Trump supporter, and likely considered that “good.”

My second thought was, “Why would I give up my guns now? You evil assholes.”

There are many more. It is always the same, “Now that it happened to YOU, you will ban guns, right?”

This is just as revolting as the idiots that post “Now that “People of Color” are buying guns, Republicans will be willing to ban them.”

There isn’t a single drop of blood these vultures won’t use against us.

At around 1800, 2024-07-13, President Trump was shot. He was hit in the right ear, was escorted off the stage at the rally in Butler, PA.

He was taken to the hospital where he will be evaluated.

Three different versions of what happened are floating on X.

1. Someone shot him with a pistol, missing his head by only a small amount.
2. Someone shot at him with a rifle at distance.
3. Someone shot at him with a BB gun.

The reports indicate 5 to 9 shots. The shots did not sound like a firearm to me.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/possible-gunfire-breaks-out-trump-rally-pennsylvania

It now appears that the shooter was using a long rifle from outside the venue. The shooter is dead. Having been wrong on the “didn’t sound like a firearm”, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that it wasn’t an AR-15 platform.

If it had been an AR-15, there would have been more rounds fired.

Regardless, thank God that Trump survived with only minor injury.

Take a look at CNN and the Washington Post for examples of TDS and malicious reporting.

In August 2022, Thomas and Diane Lamarco filed suit in the eastern district of New York. This is a different challenge to §922(g).

If you read §922(g), or you are familiar with from 4473, you know there is a long list of people that are prohibited from possessing firearms. We are currently arguing about the constitutionality of most of §922(g).

In Rahimi the Supreme Court said that people who have been adjudicated guilty in a court of law of being a credible threat of physical violence to another, can be temporarily denied their Second Amendment protected rights.

The Supreme Court has not said anything about non-violent people, nor about people who have served their time.

But did you know that there is another entire group of prohibited people? There is.

These are the people that reside on the same property as a prohibited person. The state assumes that if a person resides at a property, they have access to any of the firearms at that property. It doesn’t matter whether the firearm is secured or not. The state assumes the prohibited person has access.

At some point, officers responded to a “mental health assistance” call for somebody else at the residence. This response, in Suffolk County, means that the other residents lose their gun rights.

They want to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is implicated. The burden shifts to the state to prove a historical tradition of matching firearms regulations in this Nation’s history.

This was filed on July 1st. The court was having none of it.

This is a text order, there is no citation to a paper. It is in the docket for the case.

This is a spanking of the state. No doubt about it. Good news.

For the last week or more, I’ve been watching Paris burn, and with it, France.

This is portrayed as “the far-right” vs. the “left-wing”. Which begs the question, what does it take to be “far-left”?

Right-wing and Left-wing come from where the different parties sat in the German parliament. The communists sat on the left, the Nazi, and socialists and everybody else sat on the right.

So to say that Nazi’s are right wing only refers to them being further right than communists. Which wasn’t very far.

The “right” in these United States are conservatives, not Nazi’s or other socialist scumbags.

Parliaments

Following the Alex Baldwin saga is frustrating. This is a man who claims that he bears no responsibility for killing another person because somebody else should have made sure his gun was safe to shoot at people.

The gist of the case: Alec Baldwin was an actor producer on a low-budget western called “Rust”. As the STAR, he demanded the biggest, baddest gun. He was a jackass during safety briefings. He failed to follow the safety briefings.

There is evidence that he engaged in horseplay with the revolver while making videos during his firearms training while using full load blanks, displayed reckless behavior as it related to the use of a firearm, such as pointing it and firing a blank round at a crew member while using that crew member as a line of sight as his perceived target.”

He then, again, failed to follow the four rules. He pointed a gun at a person, cocked the hammer, and pulled the trigger. Killing the cinematographer.

He claimed he never pulled the trigger. The FBI tested the gun to destruction, and was unable to get the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled.

In other words, it looks like he is a lying sack of bull dung.

Now, the state is introducing new evidence:

After October 21, 2021 [he] was insistent that he not be required to follow safety recommendations made by film set safety experts on the continuation of the filming of Rust in Montana.

The “continuation of the filming” means after he shot and killed a person, the asshole was still disregarding his safety briefings and the safety rules.

It still comes up on my random play list. If you want fun, go look it up on YouTube. There are some Kyle R. versions.

What is a GVR?

The process for an appeal is to request that a case be heard. When the superior court Grants that appeal, the case is moved to a final opinion. One of the possible outcomes is that the inferior court’s opinion is Vacated.

When an inferior court’s opinion is vacated, the superior court has an option to Remand the case back to the inferior court for a do-over.

When the superior court does this without hearing anything from the parties outside the request to be heard, it is called “GVR”.

If the superior court were to just “GVR” a case, it wouldn’t be helpful to the inferior court. Nobody learns from “You are mistaken, do it over.” There needs to be some level of feedback.

On July 2nd, 2024, the Supreme Court issued their final orders of the 2023 term.

Read More