Legal

This case is being set up for a bases loaded home run.

Consider the Second Amendment legal landscape of 4 years ago. Heller had set the standard. Is the plain text of the Second Amendment implicated? If so, what is this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation?

This was a joyful time. I remember that D.C. became a constitutional carry location for about 5 minutes before they changed the rules.

The problem we had was that there was a footnote in the Heller opinion that the anti-gunners used to pry open the path to gun control.

California was one of the first states to drive through that gap. Chicago, Maryland, New Jersey, and others quickly followed.

These Heller response laws were challenged. The cases made their way up to the circuit courts, where we learned the wonderful world of interest balancing.

Under interest balancing, the courts would first ask the purpose of the law or regulation. If the proposed purpose was deemed to be “important” enough, then a lower standard of scrutiny would be applied. If the proposed purpose wasn’t important enough, then higher levels of scrutiny would be applied.

What this meant was that the courts looked like they were treating the plaintiffs with respect while putting four or five thumbs on the scales of justice.

The 9th, 7th, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th circuit courts all took up the cry of “interest balancing.” The other circuits weren’t ruling on Second Amendment cases, so it didn’t really matter.

All the circuits that took up Second Amendment challenges all decided in the same way. Against The People.

Bruen put an end to levels of scrutiny. The inferior courts are still playing games. The current game playing focuses on “Is it an arm?” and “Can you prove it is in common use for self-defense?” Their goal is to keep Bruen from being applied.

But we have a problem. All the circuit courts that are ruling on Second Amendment cases are ruling the same way. Against The People. They are still the same rogue, inferior courts, thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court.

But something has changed out there in New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Trump and other originalist jurists have become a majority in the Third Circuit.

If we can get just one more confirmation, and there is a nominee going through the process right now, it will be an even larger majority.

The People got a shitty draw of judges for the merits panel. Not that surprising. We expected another loss. Judges Shwartz, Freeman, and Smith heard oral arguments on July 1st 4-2450-24-2506_Association of NJ Rifle Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General N. Jetal.

Here is where it gets interesting: on the same day that the case was argued, the court ordered the parties to produce a transcript. Which was entered into the record on July 15th.

Why did they need a written record? Likely because they expected other courts or panels were going to want to read it.

Under the Third Circuit’s internal operating procedures, a merits panel must circulate their opinion(s) before they are published. This gives the rest of the judges on the court an opportunity to comment and provide suggestions.

But something else can happen: if a majority of the active judges are in disagreement with the proposed opinion, they can grant an en banc hearing sua sponte. (Without a request from either party). And this is what happened on August 21st.

We are pretty sure that the opinion by this three-judge merits panel was going to go against us. If the majority of the active judges agreed with that opinion, there is no reason to call for an en banc hearing.

En banc hearings in the Third Circuit are a pain. It is all the judges dealing with the one case. It isn’t common.

In Snope we saw the Fourth Circuit do the same thing; gut in that case, we were expecting a positive opinion.

Oral arguments will be held on October 15th at 0930.

The only wrinkle is that Judge Smith is no longer an active judge, but he has elected to participate as a member of the en banc panel. Smith is currently a senior judge, meaning he only hears cases of interest to him.

If the Third Circuit finds for The People and the Constitution, this will create a major circuit split. This makes the case ripe for the Supreme Court. Matching it with Kavanaugh’s dissent in refusing cert on Snope.

Representatives are allocated by population. The higher the state’s population, the more representatives they have.

The total number of representatives has been fixed for a while. This means that if one state gets more representatives, some other state gets fewer.

Not only do representatives determine the make up of the House, they also determine the make up of the electorial collage.

Thus, the number of representatives a state has is critical in determining political outcomes.

One of the issues currently being debated is a new census before the 2028 election. There are indications that some states, such as California, are overrepresented because the census counted criminal illegal aliens. Look into the 3/5s clause in the Constitution for why this is an issue.

After every census, the states can redistrict based on the new census numbers.

In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act sets new rules for how the representatives should be chosen by the many states.

Unfortunately, this act is likely at odds with the Constitution. In particular the Fourteenth Amendment. Any law that Congress passes that is contrary to the Constitution is void. Unfortunately, it takes a case reaching the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreeing the law is contrary to the Constitution for the law to be struck down.

Of course, this hasn’t stopped rogue, agenda-driven, inferior court judges from pretending that Congress can pass laws restricting the powers of the Article II executive.

The question then becomes, “How do you create districts for a state that are representative of the people of the state?”

Generally the districts of a state are created to control the outcome of elections.

Here is part of the 2011 congressional districts of Maryland:

If you look at Congressional District 01 in orange, you can see that it has many counties within it. But more importantly, it extends into Baltimore County. The same with District 02. Most of the military of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds and Edgewood Area are in District 02. But I also include a part of Baltimore City and Howard County.

I’m sure you would not be surprised to learn that the very high concentration of PoC voting Democrat causes Districts 01 and 02 to be Democrat districts.

The current congressional districts follow the county borders.

The way this worked was that everybody knows that Baltimore is a huge Democrat stronghold. It is so huge that they can dilute it with Republicans and still come out for the Democrats.

By using the Democrat voters of Baltimore in districts 1, 2, 3, and 7 they made 4 of the 8 districts +Democrat. District 4 is using the Democrat voters of Montgomery County to overwhelm the Republican voters of the rest of the district. Districts 5, 6, and 8 are Democrat strongholds; they don’t need any help from the city.

This districting leaves Republicans of Maryland without representation in Congress.

In Louisiana v. Callais the Supreme Court is hearing a case challenging the VRA on Constitutional grounds.

In Robinson v. Ardoin in 2023, a district court found that Louisiana had violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The inferior court ordered the state to create an additional majority-black district to avoid “vote dilution.”

This court order resulted in Louisiana’s SB8. The sponsor of SB8 said “We all know why we’re here. We were ordered to draw a new Black district, and that’s what I’ve done”.

That new district stretches 250 miles from the Shreveport in the northwest to Baton Rouge in southeast Lousiiana.

All to create another black district. When we say black district, what is really meant is “Democrat district.”

Well the Supreme Court got the case and decided to punt. Thomas was unhappy with that and told the world how unhappy he was.

This case was argued on March 24th in the 2024 term. Instead of issuing an opinion before the end of the term, the Court instead put the case back on the calendar for reargument.

It appears that the Court wants to be briefed on specific aspects of the case.

Conclusion

This case is outside my knowledge base. In trying to understand the question presented, I’m lost. And that is just one page. Thank goodness Thomas writes in English that I can understand.

This is just another case clawing back the rights of The People after years of reverse descrimination.

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Trump v. CASA which found that the courts do not have the authority to grant universal injunctions.

This put the left in a tailspin. If they can’t get universal injunctions, they can’t stop the Trump Administration in the courts. The current battle plan of the deep state, leftist *bleep*, is to delay, delay, delay.

During Trump’s first term, they neutered him by cutting him off from his trusted associates and then throwing up roadblocks at every occasion. The goal was to delay his actions until he was removed from office.

This time around, they are using the courts because Trump v2.0 is better, faster, and better equipped to deal with their games. He issues executive orders that explicitly state that he wants the law to be followed. He doesn’t zero a budget; he reduces it to the required minimum. He doesn’t close an agency; he just folds all their duties into other agencies and guts the workforce.

The Supreme Court left open an avenue for nationwide injunctions to take place. That path is a “class action.”

This requires a class certification. The court must determine if a group of individuals has similar claims that can be grouped together.

The investigation and filing process normally takes a few months to a year to complete. My understanding is that the average is closer to 12 months than 2 months.

After the investigation, the request for class certification is filed, and the court decides. This takes from 6 months to 2 years.

Our timeline, June 27, 2025, no more universal injunctions. On June 27th, the court orders the parties to file how Trump v CASA impacts this case by July 2nd. On July 2nd, the plaintiffs (bad guys) said that this is really a class action suit. On July 25, the court says that they are treating this as a certified class and grants an injunction.

We are about 10 days from reading another SCOTUS opinion and order telling this court to knock it the F___ off.

Note, the Washington Post is reporting this as a TRO. It is not. It is a preliminary injunction which can be appealed.

Maybe we’ll see the Second Circuit Court do the right thing. I doubt it, but the D.C. Circuit Court did.

We are into the 2025 term. The Justices are on vacation, yet they are still issuing opinions relating to orders almost weekly.

This is another win for Trump. So far every case to reach the Supreme Court has been a win for the Trump Administration.

The left is having hissy fits.

The frustration in the Court’s opinion is highlighted here. “…squarely controlled…” is court speak for “We told you ungrateful incompetent rogue judges how to do this already! Don’t you make me stop this car!” The following does not differ in any pertinent respect: telling those same self-important, agenda-driven hacks that they were told how to do exactly this type of case.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion. His opinion is that the Court should just grant certiorari and issue a full opinion.

The inferior courts continue to play games to get what they want. It is just stupid.

They keep losing, but it makes for great headlines.

So tomorrow we will hear about the great Justice Kagan and how she brought the heat down on the conservatives of the Court.

It doesn’t matter if you are provided a path to what you want if you can never reach that path.

We talk about 18 U.S.C. §922(g) often. This is the prohibited person section of the US Code. It is what is used to justify form 4473.

The government is allowed to create regulations that are necessary to perform the task they are required to do by law. This is how come the NFA has a registration and background check plus all the rest of the BS that goes with purchasing an NFA item.

All of those regulations are in place to make sure that you have paid your taxes. The entire NFA is based on collecting taxes. The registration is just a byproduct of collecting taxes. The background check is just a byproduct of collecting taxes.

§922(g) states who is prohibited from possessing a firearm. This is a horrible mutation from the original version of §922(g). The original version was a restriction on FFLs from selling to a prohibited person.

A prohibited person could buy a gun from somebody else or acquire it by gift. They could still lawfully posses it.

In addition, they could manufacture a firearm and possess that. §922(g) was only a restriction on the sale of interstate commerce in firearms.

When Congress passed the original §922(g) in 1968, they also included a method to get your Second Amendment protected rights back. Under 18 U.S.C. §925(c).

This means there is a procedure to get your rights back by asking Mommy Dearest for permission.

In 1992, Congress added a rider to the appropriations bill.

This has been going on for the last 33 years!

What this means is that you can apply for your rights back, but there is no money for the ATF to process those requests. So you have no mouth.

The most recent version of the rider is:

The Department of Justice just announced that they are opening a web portal for people to apply to regain their Second Amendment protected rights. Since “main justice” is doing this, it comes under their budget and not the salaries of ATF personnel.

This is another major Trump Administration end run around a violation of our rights.

Sotomayor is the target today. She wrote the dissent, which Kagan and Jackson joined.

The issue that Sotomayor is having is called “reading comprehension”

Trump ordered McHahan to take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department [of Education]. The Sotomayor decided that “facilitate the closure” and “close” mean the same thing.

They don’t.

The law requires that there be a Department of Education. It describes what the functions of the department will be. Nowhere does it say “there shall be 3,284 employees” nor how the executive chooses to organize what employees the department has.

The law requires a few people to be employed by the DoE. That could be as small as “the director.”

When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law,… does not mean they have broken the law. Nor did the Executive order the closure of the DoJ. Sotomayor is known to talk differently to regular people than she does to the other justices. Trump talking to The People is not the words he used in the his Executive Order. This is normal.

It hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out.

And here is her big mistake: the Constitution grants the power of the Executive to one person, the president. The president decides how best to execute the laws of the United States. He decides who is necessary to carry them out.

The courts do not get to decide how the Executive administers, staffs, or prioritizes the executive branch. That is the responsibility of the executive, and the executive (president) has the only authority to do so.

Sotomayor is upset because without that gigantic staff, the DoE won’t be able to award over $120 billion of our tax dollars in student aid.

Since she also believes that student loans can be forgiven, this means she believes that the Executive should be forced to hand over billions of dollars to students.

Thank goodness that Obama was only able to put two justices on the Supreme Court. Kagan and Sotomayor were both nominated by Obama.

Both were highly questionable nominations. I am grateful that Garland didn’t make it onto the court; that would have been insanely bad for this country. He did enough damage as AG.

Sotomayor was a joke. Underqualified, not a serious candidate, but the GOP allowed her to get on the court.

She was the least qualified Justice of my lifetime.

Kagan was qualified, sort of. The problem with her was that she was involved with Obamacare, which was on its way to the Supreme Court.

She lied when she said she had nothing to do with Obamacare. She then refused to recuse herself when the case did make it to the Supreme Court.

She is dangerous. She is dangerous because she isn’t stupid; she isn’t dumb. What she is is a Justice who is agenda driven.

She might become as good as Justice Ginsburg. Ginsburg wrote opinions and dissents that always came out in the direction of her agenda. She got there with well-written opinions that were grounded in good case law and good precedent.

She was a good Justice, just not capable of following the Constitution when the outcome didn’t fit her agenda.

Kagan is striving to be the new Ginsburg. If she doesn’t leave the court, she might just make it to that high standard.

Sotomayor is a middle-of-the-road justice. When she is gone, she will be remembered as the first liberal Justice to agree that AR-15s and their ilk are in common use.

The Biden Administration nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson. She has turned out to be a good politician.

The definition of a good politician is one that stays bought.

She was bought and paid for by the Democrat machine. The only requirement they had for her was that she would dependably vote for the Democrat agenda.

She has done this.

In an 8-1 opinion, the Supreme Court granted a stay in favor of the Trump administration. Eight to one.

Sotomayor decided to write a concurrence. Jackson wrote a dissent.

Now, I’m not about to read the drivel that Jackson wrote. The first 10 pages of her dissent do not cite to anything except a recent Supreme Court opinion. And her cite is garbage. It does not apply.

What it is is emotional blackmail wrapped around “we got away with it for the last hundred years; that means we should be able to get away with it for the next five hundred years.”

In a democracy, the people will at some point start to vote themselves bread and circuses. This is why our founding fathers created a democratic republic. The goal was that the people were one step removed from the people creating law. They also set the federal government to be at war with itself.

We want a dysfunctional government. We want the three branches to be at odds with each other. Stopping most of the things the government wants to do.

Over the last hundred years, Congress has been voting itself more power. They did this by removing power from the executive, Article II, to oversee the Article II parts of government. They placed limits on the executive.

We are in the “Find Out” stage. And the current Supreme Court is doing a grand job of following the Constitution.

I look forward to reading the next opinion by the Supreme Court. I want to know who is the next to take KBJ to task.

You know you done f’ed up when Kagan is siding with the conservative side of the court.

The gist of the issues is that the Supreme Court issued a stay regarding an inferior district court’s injunction stopping the Trump Administration from deporting criminal, illegal aliens. The 8 deportees in question have all been adjudicated guilty of violent crimes. Rape, rape of a child, murder, attempted murder and other crimes.

All of them have had not only full due process for a criminal alien, but also for somebody accused of a serious crime. They were found guilty.

After the court found them guilty, a final order for removal was issued.

These people were so despicable that their origin countries refused to take them back. This left the Administration with limited options. When a criminal alien is deported, the choices are to the last country they were in or their country of origin. If their country of origin and the last country refuses them entry, then it is the duty of the Administration to figure out what to do with them.

Since we can’t just execute them. Even though a wood chopper is the tool of choice for kiddy diddlers, that isn’t allowed under our morals.

The administration could just let them live in the comfort of a US jail/prison. Or they can deport them to a third-party country.

Nobody wanted these people. That is how bad they are. The Trump Administration negotiated with several countries before a couple agreed to take these monsters. We don’t know what it costs to be rid of them.

This inferior court judge decided that he was the person to set foreign policy and to decide how immigration policy should be.

Of course, he is in the First Circuit out of Boston. One of those 5 districts that issued 35 universal injunctions.

And this injunction was another universal injunction. Since this was before Trump v. CASA, universal injunctions had not been ruled unconstitutional.

Now, the left likes to play games with words. Trump is playing that even better. The injunction issued by the District Court’s injunction said that the DoJ could not deport these criminals. So the administration let the DoD deport them.

So the Administration followed the letter of the “law” but ignored the spirit. This Biden appointee, with less than 200 days on the federal bench, had a hissy fit.

He issued an order for remedial action against the Trump Administration. His order created new immigration policy. It set up new, never before used rules and methods. In short, he decided he was able to dictate to the Article II executive how immigration policy should be done.

The administration appealed to the First Circuit, which ruled against them. A foregone conclusion.

This was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a stay on June 23rd.

This stay allowed the government to deport non-citizens to third countries.

The same day the stay was issued, the inferior district court issued an order stating that the remedies that had been ordered were still enforce because the government had not challenged the remedies.

This led the government to go back to the Supreme Court looking for a “Clarification”. This is almost unheard of.

This is one of the parties telling The Court that their inferior court was disobeying a direct order.

The Court granted that clarification. Even Kagan thought it should be clarified and agreed it was correctly clarified.

If the injunction is stayed, then any penalties that were issued by the inferior court are also stayed.

This is actually another powerful opinion from the Supreme Court.

In J.G.G. v. Trump, the district court was found to lack jurisdiction over the case. The case was transferred to the appropriate court, through the district court of New Jersey. The New Jersey district court got the case and immediately transferred it to Texas. Honest judges are doing such a good job that we don’t even hear about the case anymore.

The judge in the D.C. district court found “probable cause” to find the Trump Administration in contempt of an injunction he did not have the jurisdiction nor authority to issue.

This current opinion, DHS v. D.V.D. will help in the J.G.G. v. Trump case.

The differences are amazing.

A few months ago, somebody was shooting in the back forty. This caused somebody to report gun shots in the area. Must be some out of stater who has no ability to keep their nose in their own business.

Because it was a “shots heard”, the local cops, who I consider to be good guys, dispatched two officers in two squad cars.

They pull into the driveway. I go to the porch and say, “Hello! Can I help you?”

Per normal procedure, the cop doesn’t answer my question but asks his own.

“Were you shooting?”

“I don’t answer questions.”

If the police come to you, they are investigating a crime or potential crime. They are not there to “help” you, they are there to gather evidence to issue a citation, warning, or arrest somebody.

Anything you say can be used as evidence. It is a consensual encounter, which you can terminate at any time.

The next thing that will happen is the officer will repeat the original question. Most people can’t deal with the pressure of being asked the same question again and again.

My answer was again, “I don’t answer questions.”

The officer, per procedures, will then explain why they are there. They will then suggest that they are just “investigating” to find out what happened. They will then ask again. “Were you shooting?” “I don’t answer questions.”

All of this is per standard investigatory procedures.

At this point, the officer is likely to tell you what the crime was, “Did you know that you can’t shoot within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling?”

Notice the change in language, they are not asking if you did anything, they are asking for your knowledge of the law. Since they are not asking about you, it is more likely you will start talking to them. It doesn’t matter to them if you know or don’t know.

What they are doing is establishing “Mens Rea” or criminal intent. If the law you are breaking has a condition of Mens Rea, it can change what the charge is.

Alex Baldwin had no criminal intent to murder his camera girl. He had every reason to have constructive knowledge that pointing a real gun at a person, cocking the hammer, and pulling the trigger could cause death or significant injury. This is enough to establish Mens Rea for manslaughter charges. (IANAL)

At this point, the cop in question basically gave up and left. No fuss, no muss, no upset on my part.

Fast-forward to yesterday.

Somebody was out in the back forty shooting. I think I heard 16 rounds go off. So what? This is a freedom state.

I didn’t think much of it and went on with my life. This meant cleanup and then working on fixing the busted garage door and other metal working stuff, before being able to get back to wood working.

Two cop cars roll up, and an older cop gets out of his squad. I can see them through the open door of the shop.

He walks up and gets close to the shop but stops maybe twenty feet from the door.

This is intentional. He wants me to step out of the shop, which is part of my house. He cannot enter the shop without permission or a warrant. “Were you shooting?”

Wow, that sounds amazingly familiar. Almost as if it is SOP.

“I don’t answer questions.”

The cop then tries silence. Most people don’t deal well with silence. They want to fill it. So I just stood there smiling as he let the situation drag on.

He then asks again. SOP. I use my SOP, “I don’t answer questions.”

His SOP is in full display. Everything he says is according to the script. And he is getting upset that I won’t answer him.

“If I find out that you were shooting, I’m going to enjoy coming back here.”

“Is that a threat?”

“No, cowards threaten, I’m promising.”

You might think that the fat old man, with a pistol on his hip, (Oh shit, I just realized that even though I didn’t have my jacket on, I had still covered my pistol with my shirt. I thought I was open carrying at that moment) had gotten under his skin.

This is when the bad cop starts to show up in full force. “Why are you refusing to answer? Why are you not cooperating?”

“Because I have a right to not answer questions.”

Another part of the discussion is where they justify asking questions because I could have “potentially done something wrong.”

Notice that they don’t say “broke the law” or “did something illegal”. That is the correct translation of “done something wrong.”

I asked him, “Have you potentially done something wrong? How about him?”

Then the long silence, he could see that this was not going according to script, and the script was running out.

At some point, he switched from asking about potential crimes to “safety.”

“If you wanted to know about safety, you should have asked.”

“I did!” “Actually, you didn’t.” “Why are you being so difficult?”

“When I shoot, I always do it safely. I am always aware of what is beyond my target. I always have a good berm or backstop. I am well aware of the laws controlling when and where I can shoot, and I never violate them.”

The chief walked away. Refused to shake hands. His backup was a bit more polite. When I asked him if he would shake my hand, his response was, “Not now.”

I don’t blame him. If he had been willing to shake hands while his chief had not, it would have looked like he was backing me, and not his boss.

Keep your head on a swivel. Stay out of stupid places. Don’t be out at stupid times. Avoid stupid people. Stay strapped.

“Well, bless your heart.”

“Even the gun nuts want assault weapons bans, they keep telling me ‘come and take it'”

“May you live in interesting times.”

All of these sound polite yet are not. They have meaning that is decades or even centuries old.

“Bless your heart” is a southern way of politely saying, “you can go F yourself.”

“Come and take it.” is a reference to Mexico attempting to take a cannon from a small Texas town. They didn’t. It means that we will not go quietly into the dark.

“May you live in interesting times” is a translation of a Chinese curse.

“My estimated colleague” is a term of phrase used in congress to mean, “That MFing AH.” Or similar words.

“My friend” in oral arguments means, “That stupid ass that is arguing with me.”

In the Supreme Court, the majority opinion refers to “the principal dissent” or “JUSTICE KAGAN’s dissent”. If there is only one dissent, they will refer to it as “the dissent.”

They do not call each other out by name. It isn’t polite, it isn’t respectful.

Justice Barrett wrote this. And 5 other justices signed on to it. This is a public spanking of the least qualified justice on the Supreme Court. “…view is at odds…” is court speak for “is wrong.”

I can’t find the words to express how much of a slap in the face this language is. This is the Law Professor talking down to a C- student that didn’t bother to do their homework.

The highlighted phrase indicates that this is not just Justice Barrett with this opinion of Jackson, it is all the Justices that signed on to the majority opinion. There is no mistaking this for anything than what it is. The majority is calling out Jackson as being unqualified to sit on the court.

There are dozens of articles out there talking about how the end to Universal Injunctions is good for this country. This case will end most of the legal battles against the Trump Administration.

The only reason these cases were being filed was to stop the Trump Administration from carrying out their actions. There have been no findings of merit in any of these cases. Merely inferior court judges saying they think the plaintiffs (bad guys) might win, and because it is so important, they are blocking the Administration.

Under normal circumstances, this would be a 3 to 10 year block on the Administration.

Now that the delay tactic is gone, there is no reason to file losing cases. The money will dry up, and these cases will just evaporate.

Conclusion

I have been disappointed that Amy hasn’t voted for cert in a number of Second Amendment cases. What I have noticed is that her arguments are clear and well-founded in our Nation’s history and traditions of regulations. She is doing the right thing, even if I don’t like the outcomes.

This case is still another “plain text, history, and tradition” result. This court has been standing firm in that belief.

When Kagan wrote the majority opinion in S&W v. Mexico, she referenced the plain text of the constitution, the plain text of the regulation, and the history and tradition of this Nation’s regulations.

I’m looking forward to a great Second Amendment opinion in the 2025 Term, likely released in June, 2026.