B.L.U.F. The plaintiffs response to the State is very good. Short and to the point. The state is attempting to bury the court and plaintiffs in box after box of paper. When talking experts, the State has some pretty poor ones, the Plaintiff has much better exprtsexperts.

Updated to include links to references plus insert/deletes as marked

---

I’m going to be quoting the Plaintiffs'(good guys) Response to Defendant’s(bad guys) Supplemental Briefs RE: Chart of Historical Laws. To that end I’m going to give credit to those writers

C.D. Michel, Sean A. Brady, Anna M. Barvir, Matthew D. Cubeiro of Michel & Associates, P.C. These are all lawyers working for Virginia Duncan et all on this case. Having read some of the filings of the state my hat goes off to them. They have done an amazing job of just reading the piles of paper the state is attempting to bury this case in.

To give you some idea of the pure amount of paper reading involved with this, let me give you a brief outline of just one document:

Compendium of Works Cited In Declaration of Michael Vorenberg Volume 1 of 11. This is a 58 page document. Now most of the legal documents I read are 8.5×11 double spaced with 1.5 in left margin and 0.5 inch right margin. Lots of room to take notes. There are normally 28 lines per page, there are about 10 words per line. 280 words per page if full, most are not.

Example:

California Penal Code section 32310 (“Section 32310”), which restricts large-
capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds (“LCMs”), fully
comports with the Second Amendment under the standard announced in New York
State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Plaintiffs have
failed to satisfy Bruen’s threshold requirement to show that the “plain text” of the
Second Amendment contemplates a right to possess LCMs. But even if they had
made that threshold showing, Plaintiffs’ challenge to Section 32310 nevertheless
fails under Bruen’s historical analysis. Section 32310 is consistent with a long
tradition of restrictions on items that are uniquely dangerous and especially prone to
criminal misuse. Under the “more nuanced” analytical approach that this case
requires, these historical laws are “relevantly similar” to Section 32310—that is,
they are comparable in the minimal burdens they impose on the Second
Amendment right to armed self-defense and in the justifications underlying them.

— Bonta Defendant’s Brief in Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Briefs

That is about half of a page. The line breaks are as is in the original. I normally remove those extra line breaks in order to make it easier to read on multiple devices.

On 2022-11-10 the AG of California filed the declaration of Michael Vorenberg after the case had been GVR by the Supreme Court and then VRed from the ninth circuit court back to Judge Benitez.

Michael is an associate history professor at Brown University. He was asked by the CA AG to give his opinion regarding the History and Tradition of firearm regulation. The Supreme Court has told the inferior courts that in order for a current infringement to stand, they must show a history and tradition of that type of regulation at the time of the founding.

In addition, the laws must have similar how and why. So if the “why” was to keep guns out of the hands of slaves and the state wants to use that law to justify banning a class of firearms the “whys” don’t match. In addition, such laws have not stood the test of time and can’t be used as they are part of the “slave” and “racist” laws that are no longer legal in the United States.

So Michael starts his opinion with a summary:

This declaration provides results of an investigation into the existence, usage, and regulation of high-capacity firearms (guns capable of firing more than 10 rounds without re-loading) during the Reconstruction period of U.S. History (1863-1877), with special focus on the period during Reconstruction when the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was created, ratified, and enforced (1866-1876). The result of the investigation can be summarized as follows: There were high-capacity firearms during Reconstruction, and all of them, including those that could easily be carried by a single individual, were regarded in all the states at the time as weapons suitable only for law enforcement officers, not for ordinary citizens. With very few exceptions, almost all of which were in the Western Territories, high-capacity firearms during the era were understood to be weapons of war or anti-insurrection, not weapons of individual self-defense.

This doesn’t sound good for us. He seems to be saying that repeating firearms, like the Winchester and Henry lever action rifles were just for the military. Not for self-defense. All the states and territories understood this.

Ok, let’s see the proof

Evidence for these assertions does not necessarily take the form of statutes or court decisions, and that is entirely unsurprising: explicit legal text prohibiting civilian possession of the most dangerous weapons of war was not commonly the means by which such weapons were regulated in the United States during the Civil War and Reconstruction. Rather, prohibitions existed in the policies and practices of the U.S. army and its auxiliary or allied units, such as the state-wide militias that operated as law enforcement bodies during Reconstruction. No statutes or court opinions can be found during the period that banned civilian possession of artillery pieces, hundreds of which existed unused after the Civil War, but of course the absence of such express prohibitions cannot be read as evidence that civilians were allowed to possess such pieces. Rather, policy and practice dictated that only the U.S. army and its allied military units could possess such weapons. High-capacity firearms, which like artillery pieces were created as weapons of war, were regulated in the same way, through policy and practice limiting possession of such firearms to the U.S. army and its allied military units. Unlike artillery pieces, however, high-capacity firearms during Reconstruction did come to be regarded by their manufacturers as having a potential market among U.S. civilians.

What a minute there Hoss, “…these assertions [do] not necessarily take the form of statutes or court decisions…” Ok, so nothing Michael has to say is actually relevant post Bruen This declaration is sort of like saying that many schools don’t allow peanut products in the schools. This is exactly the same as a law banning peanut products on school grounds.

Yes, many schools ban peanut products within the school, especially when they have students with known peanut alergies.

Here is another quote by Michael:

…The primary, almost exclusive buyers of high-capacity weapons during Reconstruction were a small number of U.S. army units and state law enforcement bodies. Manufacturers of high-capacity firearms during Reconstruction thus looked outside the United States for buyers. The Winchester Repeating Rifle Company, the only company to produce such weapons during post-civil War Reconstruction, stayed afloat during Reconstruction only by selling high-capacity firearms to foreign armies.

We’ll come back to this little quote in a few.

This declaration runs to 71 pages. Not to bad given what was covered. And it includes about 10 pages of filler.

Which takes us back to the start, that “Compendium” for Micheal’s declaration.

Here is a sample page:

Now that is some dense text. There are 50 some pages of this.

The next Declaration is Robert Spitzeris the Declaration of Robert Spitzer. Robert Spitzer is an anti-gun rights professor with SUNY that has written multiple books. He has voiced his opinion that Heller was decided incorrectly and that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.

Again, Bruen says that it is the history and tradition at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights that is where the state must find laws to support current gun infringements.

Bob starts his declaration by tell us that “mass shootings” are a new social problem. He then, just as the State does, they wantwants to justify their infringement by pointing over there and saying “They’re doing it too!” When doing so, they use population percentages rather than number of states. So while IIRC slightly more than half of the states are now constitutional carry, they point out that over a quarter of the population of the US are currently having their rights infringed so they should be allowed to as well.

His first reference to actual history:

A clear example of this historical pattern is provided by early twentieth-century restrictions related to fully automatic firearms. While weapons capable of firing rounds in rapid succession can be traced to guns of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, like the hand-cranked, multi-barreled Gatling gun which could fire up to 200 rounds per minute,7 it and its successors were military weapons designed to be used in combat and fired from a tripod or similar supporting apparatus, owing to the Gatlin gun’s size and weight. Strictly speaking, guns like the Gatling gun were not fully automatic as they did not fire a continuous stream of bullets while depressing a gun trigger. The development of a fully automatic machine gun for battlefield use, capable of firing all of its rounds from a single barrel and with a single trigger pull, came to fruition during World War I, and to devastating effect, where tripod-mounted machine guns on the battlefield, like the Maxim, which initially fired 200-400 rounds per minute but later 400-600 rounds per minute from a gun weighing roughly 100 pounds.

So his starting point is the early 1900’s. When he actual gives us the first example of a weapons ban. In 1927! Yep, 136 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified. So outside the limits of Bruen

One of the standard arguments is that the founding fathers could not and did not anticipate modern repeating firearms. If they had, they would never have written the second amendment to be so broad. Remember, this is at a time when anybody could own any weapon including warships.

Bob takes this and twists it greatly.

Dinesh D’Souza in his speeches talks about his assertion that at the time of the civil war NO Republican owned a slave. All it takes is one example of this to disprove his assertion. They found something close. Prior to the Civil war, UUlysses .S. Grant’s wife inherited a slave when her parents(?) died.

The Grants freed that slave when they could. It is unclear to me if the Grants still owned that slave at the start of the Civil war or if they had indeed freed him prior.

Regardless, when there is a strong assertion it only takes a single example to disprove that assertion. The gun rights infringers make the assertion that our founding fathers didn’t know about repeating firearms and wrote the second amendment thinking there would never be anything better than muzzle loading rifles.

And we know this to be false. David Kopel writes extensively about many different multi-shoot or “repeating” firearms that were in existence either prior to the founding or at the same time.

Bob twists the assertion. Otherwise known as “moving the goalposts.” While citing Kopel he points out that most if not all of the repeating firearms were designed for the military and not for self-defense.

We don’t care. You asserted the founding fathers were ignorant of the expected technological advancements in firearms so they wrote bad law. We proved they did know, so moving the goalposts is not flying.

And Bob’s Conclusion:

What does the law say, and what should the law be, regarding the regulation of firearms and other harmful or dangerous weapons and accessories, in the light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Bruen decision? Given the importance of history, especially, though not limited to, the founding era and the Reconstruction era, the lesson is abundantly clear. Firearms and other dangerous weapons were subject to remarkably strict, consistent, and wide-ranging regulation throughout our history when they entered society, proliferated, and resulted in violence, harm, or contributed to criminality. This historical record from the 1600s through the early twentieth century, as seen in the examples examined here, is even more remarkable given that the United States was an evolving and developing nation-state that could not claim to have reached maturity until the twentieth century. The historical record summarized here makes clear that contemporary restrictions among the states pertaining to assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines are merely the latest iteration of a centuries-long tradition of weapons regulations and restrictions. Gun ownership is as old as the country. But so are gun and other dangerous weapons laws, which have adapted to changes in threats to public safety.

And you can spot the cheat right there “though not limited to”. In the parts of his entire declaration I read he doesn’t mention any arms bans via the law until the 1900’s. They are attempting to conflate bans on how to carry with bans on weapons. They are attempting to conflate bans on “scary knives” with bans on “scary guns”

One of the things that Judge Benitez asked for in the survey was when the law was passed and when it was repealed or overturned. I’ve not seen the second part brought forth by the state. I think the plaintiffs might have done so in some of their filings.

Bob’s declaration runs to 37 pages of his opinion and then on to page 230 with references and copies of laws. Attached to that is 5 volumes of “Works Cited.”

Given everything I read, I didn’t find anything in the declarations of these two expert witnesses to be of any weight. So we’ll jump back to Mike’s statement about Winchester only staying afloat during the reconstruction era via sales to foreign militaries.

We’ll go to Judge Benitez’s words in Status Conference on December 12, 2022

THE COURT: All you got to do, if you look at Professor Cornell’s declarations and you look at the website that he refers to — to Winchester — to the Winchester company, if you look at that website, you see that, in fact, they were commonly owned. So, I mean, what are you going to do? You going to —
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, if —
THE COURT: How are you going to — I mean, if you look at Mr. Vorenberg’s declaration, and you look at — for example, as I sit here right now, I can recall one instance that he talks about where two miners were mining for borax.

Yeah, Mike’s declaration is pretty much laughable and Judge Benitez gets it.

So now I’m going to put up some of the response from the Plaintiff’s:

The State presented an overwhelming number of historical laws, and Plaintiffs painstakingly examined each of them. Not one 19th century or earlier law, not even an outlier, involved a restriction on the capacity of a firearm. Because of that inescapable fact, the State reached for anything it could grasp, including racist laws, laws restricting carry, fire-safety laws, “trap gun” laws, and more. Given that broad sweep, Plaintiffs wonder what the State would argue is not an analogue to its modern magazine ban. In any event, the State has failed to meet its burden under Bruen. This Court should again enter judgment for the Plaintiffs.

The State concedes this fact (as it must), but argues that as long as magazines of ten rounds or fewer are allowed, the law does not implicate the Second Amendment because people can defend themselves with these smaller magazines. Dkt.No.142 at 6-7. But because the test asks only whether the item is an “arm,” the State is apparently arguing that a magazine under ten rounds is an “arm,” but somehow one over ten rounds is not. This is not only absurd, but it also empowers the State to determine exactly where that line is to be drawn. The Heller Court, however, has rejected the idea that Second Amendment rights can be so easily manipulated. See, e.g., Heller, 554 U.S. at 629 (“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”) (emphasis added); id. at 634-35 (“Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.”)

To be clear, when the State claims the Second Amendment is not implicated because smaller magazines suffice, it is simply arguing that the burden placed on the right of armed self-defense is minimal. That is just interest-balancing disguised as a “plain text” argument. Asking if “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct” is far different from asking what burden a law imposes on the ability to exercise self-defense. Yet the State treats these questions as if they are the same. And, in doing so, it tries to short-circuit Bruen by arguing that the Second Amendment is irrelevant just because the ability to use some firearm for self-defense remains intact despite the State’s magazine restriction. But, as we know, “[t]he right to bear other weapons is ‘no answer’ to a ban on the possession of protected arms.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 421 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring).

The State’s only response is that defining common use based on mere popularity is not enough. Dkt.No.142 at n.12. The claim is unsupported, and it conflicts with Justice Alito’s guidance on what really matters: “[T]he more relevant statistic is that ‘hundreds of thousands of tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,’ who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 states.” Caetano, 577 U.S. at 420 (Alito, J., concurring). Given that the “relevant statistic” is popularity among private citizens, and that stun guns are protected because hundreds of thousands were sold, surely over 100 million magazines are entitled to the same protection. No matter what the State feels Californians need for self-defense, millions of Americans have chosen magazines over ten rounds for their firearms. They are protected and cannot be banned.

In a footnote, they take a pot shot at one of the so called “experts” that the state is attempting to use:

Even setting aside the procedural impropriety, it is obvious from even a cursory read that Tucker is not qualified as an expert on self-defense because his commentary is not based on sufficient facts or data, nor is it the product of reliable methods. Fed. R. Evid. 702. This Court should act as a “gatekeeper” to exclude this unreliable expert testimony. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589-91 (1993). As just one example of the outlandish claims he makes, Tucker writes that “[a] single round [of .223] is capable of severing the upper body from the lower body, or decapitation.” Dkt.No.142-1, Ex. 3 at ¶ 15. As the Rupp rebuttal expert put it, Tucker’s claim “is so ridiculous that it should, and actually does, cast doubt on his qualifications as an expert in the field of firearms.” Rebuttal Report of J. Buford Boone III, at 7, Rupp v. Bonta, No. 17-cv-00746 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023). If Tucker is this wrong on very basic wound ballistics, his opinion that magazines over ten rounds are unnecessary for civilian self-defense is not worth a second look.

At the very least, the State must “justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2126, 2130. The State has come nowhere near meeting its burden. Instead, it contends the magazine ban addresses the “new” social problem of mass shootings, arguing that modern firearms with magazines over ten rounds empower individuals, acting alone, to commit such atrocities. Dkt.No.142 at 12-16. Because its magazine ban addresses this “unprecedented societal concern” and a “dramatic technological change,” the State claims it is entitled to a “more nuanced approach” for identifying a relevant historical tradition of arms regulation. But both the general social problem of mass killing and firearms able to fire multiple rounds before reloading predate the founding. And Bruen instructs that “when a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.” 142 S. Ct. at 2131

So the State makes its criteria even more specific, restricting its “unprecedented social problem” to mass shootings with ten or more fatalities committed by a single person. Dkt.No.142 at 14-15. With these arbitrary limitations, the State claims that historical mass killings were not as lethal as the mass public shootings of today. Certainly, every social problem can seem unprecedented if you force the criteria down to such specific facts. Even still, mass killings with ten or more victims committed by a single person did occur in the past. Cramer Decl. ¶¶ 32- 34. And though they often involved explosives or arson, such tragedies did at times involve firearms. Id.

In response to the undeniable commonality of repeating arms, the State essentially asks us to not believe our eyes, insisting that Henry and Winchester rifles were uncommon, and that any success was because of sales made to foreign armies. Dkt.No.142 at 14 (citing Vorenberg Decl. ¶¶ 51). But we know that “between 1861 and 1877, a total of 164,466 Henry and all models of Winchester were made, with [only about] 56,000 going to foreign governments.” Hlebinsky Decl. ¶ 31. And we know that it was mostly individuals that bought the remainder because the military did not adopt such rifles until much later. Vorenberg Decl. ¶¶ 25-29.

In short, the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed according to the understanding at the Founding, so the laws of that laws period (not the Reconstruction) should guide this Court’s analysis. California’s charts identify hundreds of alleged analogues. But it turns out that only seven of these are from the relevant period. Dkt.No. 139-1 at 2-3. A handful were adopted too early. But most were adopted far too late, having been adopted during the Civil War period or later. Of the seven founding-era laws, one was British law confining the right to Protestants, two were local gunpowder laws, one restricted the setting of “trap guns,” and three restricted carry of certain arms while engaged in unlawful activities. Id. These can hardly be characterized as anything but irrelevant outliers; they are not evidence of the enduring tradition of regulation Bruen demands.

That was submitted over Anna M Barvir’s signature. She and her team did a great job on their response. The plaintiffs responses have all been short and to the point. They don’t ramble on like I do. In reading their experts you hear what my daughter calls “causal competency”. People that are so competent that they speak with knowledge and authority and can always go back to the facts that form their opinions.

It appears that the state is in the throw spaghetti mode. They are trying to get some level of balancing. They are trying to sway the court by tales of horrific events that they think might have been stopped if only there was one more law.

Quotes of plaintiffs from: Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Briefs re Historical Laws

I’m reading the transcript of Judge Benitez’s conference meeting with the 2A cases out in California.

He has four 2A cases in front of him right now. He told the state: Put together a spreadsheet like summary of all the laws, regulations, and ordinances that you feel support your case. I want just one for all four cases. You will meet with the plaintiffs to go over those laws and they can object are not.

MR. DILLON(GG): It will just be a straight list of the laws. We will have a chance to review it as Plaintiffs. And like a summary judgment, if we have a contested issue of the summary of the law that they present, we can note that contest in the — you know, a joint document? Is that what you’re —

THE COURT(St. B): Sounds reasonable. Sounds reasonable to me.

MR. DILLON: No problem. Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. KELLY(BG): Your Honor, I think we would object to that as well. I think we would want, if we need to, to introduce experts to interpret some of the laws and the standards —

THE COURT: No.

MR. KELLY: — in the language —

THE COURT: No.

MR. KELLY: — and the statute —

THE COURT: No. Look — no, no.

Mr. Kelly, with all due respect, I don’t need — every one of these experts that you’ve put forth, I have read, just like experts that they have put forth, like Mr. Copill, for example. Your experts — these are people that have, you know, biased points of view. I mean, Mr. Bosey, for example — I hope I’m pronouncing his name. The fellow who worked for —

MR. MOROS: Kimber, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Kimber. Yeah. Who at some point in time had an epiphany and realized that all the work that he’d been doing for all these years, selling these weapons to the public was not good. And now he works — he’s a consultant for Everytown — I’m trying to remember.

Anyway, look. These people’s opinions of what these statutes say, right, means nothing. It means nothing. It’s like, I remember — I think it was Justice Brier in — I think it was Bruen, who talked about, “Well, we need to have this factual record,” and this and that, what have you.

No. 702 says that the admission of expert testimony is help — is possible if, because of the expert’s knowledge, skill, or experience, it will assist the trier of fact. Okay.

But there’s nothing. I mean, I’ve read these declarations. Every one of these folks come in here with a biased — it’s not like they’re really neutral experts, okay, or they’re not experts who’ve come up on these opinions as a result of these cases, okay, doing research for these cases. These are all people that already come with preconceived ideas and opinions, but their opinion is not worth any more than your opinion or her opinion. They’re going to tell me, “Well, in my opinion, if you look at this statute, this statute means that — you know, that the State of Wyoming regulated concealed carry of brass knuckles,” and so I can read that. I can figure that out by myself.

Damn…. This Judge Benitez gets it. He doesn’t need some opinion from an Everytown shill telling him, an actual legal expert, what a statue means.

Just wow.

More later.

B.L.U.F. Lighter content. I’m busy with client work and really want to read up on the filings and testimony for Duncan v. Bonta

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

A number of years ago I was having a discussion with my kids principal at the elementary school. I think the issue was that my kindergarten or first grader had drawn flowers on his name for some in class work. The teacher had marked him down.

The principal kept using some offensive words and in the end I said something like “When you say X it makes me want to jump down your throat.” We finished our conversation, she didn’t seem to have any issues. As I was leaving she asked me why I didn’t become a teacher because she thought I would be great teacher.

Later that day my son came home and had a letter saying I wasn’t allowed on school grounds because I had threatened the principal. It seems that they thought that “jump down your throat” was a threat of physical violence. It isn’t.

So I made an appointment and when I showed up to talk to her to figure out what was going on she brought in the only male teacher in the school and 3 other people, it was all intended to be very intimidating. I don’t intimidate very well.

I tried to show them the actual meaning of the phrase they were upset about. The refused to read it. I was accused of threatening her multiple times and when I asked “If you feel I had threatened you, why did you ask me to join the school as a teacher?”

She replied that she hadn’t said that.

All in all it was very accusatory.

I finally had had enough, turned to her and asked “to you have a bad memory or are you just lying?”

Everybody in that room responded in shock over my statement. “How rude!” My response of “But you all have been accusing me of making death threats which didn’t happen. Why are you allowed to insult me and I can’t ask why she is getting it so wrong?”

They didn’t see it. I was forced to leave with the threat of them calling the cops on me.

This is the way of the left. They attack us over and over again and at the point where we respond, we are the bad people. The number of videos of some white kid attacking a black kid are pretty extensive. Nobody seems to capture the tormenting that happens prior to their response. But they are always the bad ones.

Which takes us back to the report from Enfield, CT. From the headline I assumed that they had made some sort of threat against school officials.

Nope:

Two people have been banned from school property after they mailed letters to the homes of school officials, spewing “gibberish” and appearing to promote a global constitution…

This is a chilling effect. If you communicate with a school official and they decide that your communication was “gibberish” or they think you are promoting wrong think, you could be banned from school property.

I wonder how they would have reacted if the had received letters supporting BLM and promoting systemic racism? I wouldn’t be surprised if they were invited to be guest speakers.

The letters, which were received Wednesday, do not contain threats and neither person who signed them is accused of committing a crime, Zoppo-Sassu said. But police have told the Enfield man and Somers woman they are not permitted on school property, including school board offices, she said.

The reasons that they are banned is because “…we have zero tolerance for attempts to distract our elected and appointed officials from their jobs.”

B.L.U.F a derailed train of thought regarding gun infringers. BORING.

---

The anti-gun battle is difficult to understand because it requires us to acknowledge that there are different classes of people out there advocating for gun infringements.

I was at a client’s office shortly after the Boston Bombing. The owner of the company and I were talking. I mentioned that the media was talking about how the suspects were heading towards New York, or Canada, or a dozen other places. What they didn’t mention was a concern that they might be heading into NH.

As my lady put it “The people of New Hampshire are out in their front yards in their lawn chairs with rifle at hand hoping to bag their limit of bombers.”

The owner went was very surprised at that statement. He didn’t know that just about anybody could get a license to carry in NH. NH is now a constitutional carry state.

He asked me “Do you think there have been any guns in our office?”

I replied with “Have we had customers in the office?”

“Yes….”

“Then it is likely we have had guns in the office.” I replied.

I didn’t bother to tell him that there was a pistol on my hip and another in my EDC bag.

“Oh… I don’t like guns. My brother was killed in a gun accident when we were kids.”

---

My client had a reason to be fearful of guns. He had never learned safe gun handling and his strongest memory of a gun was his brother dying from a gunshot. His children were like wise anti-gun people.

But they didn’t do anything about it. Guns were not part of their culture. They didn’t want to be around guns and they didn’t think it was safe have guns. They didn’t try and push their wants on others.

There is another type of anti-gun person. This is the person that firmly believes that certain firearms are just to much for you to own. They have bought into all of the anti-gun propaganda. They are true believers. What they believe is that we would all be better off if there were no more “bad” guns.

They don’t really know what a “bad” gun is. They just know it when they see it. This is the person that has no problems with a mini-14 but freaks at an AR-15. That thinks an AR-15 platform like rifle that shoots .22LR is horrible and should be banned but doesn’t think anything is wrong with an M1.

A person they believe that “weapons of war” and “military style” weapons should be banned but have no issues with people owning weapons that were actually carried in war being owned and wanting to ban rifles that have never been carried in war.

These people are obnoxious but can be reached. They just need one little bit of gunshine in order to understand that maybe they haven’t been told the truth.

For these people I’ve used the “Which round sound be banned?” while showing them all sorts of rounds. They pick things like 7.62x54r, 30-06, 7.62×51 NATO, 30-30 Win, .303 British, and other rounds of that style. They almost never pick 5.56×45.

With a little bit of verbal manipulation I’ve been able to get them to pick .45 Colt over 5.56×45. I’m looking forward to having them decide between 45-70 and 5.56×45.

I had a guest ask to see my firearms when visiting. I did a small show and tell. He was from LI, NY. We were going through different things when I handed him a loaded magazine.

He started to take it and I yanked it back. “You’re from New York. Your governor says that having a magazine with more than 8 rounds (I don’t remember what it was that year) will make you a killing mass murder.” I stripped off some rounds to bring it into “S.A.F.E.” standards and handed it back to him.

“There you go, it is now safe for you to handle.”

He looked at me like I had gone crazy. “What are you talking about?”

I explained to him what the law was in his state and how having one too many rounds in a magazine was a violation of law but having the “right” number of rounds was perfectly ok.

He got it. He didn’t turn into a gun person, he stopped being anti-gun.

Another friend of mine is what I call a “thinking leftist”. She leans so far left that she’d fall over if there was a strong wind. We were having lunch together, talking about compromises in gun laws. I told her that what she was calling a compromise was just me giving up less.

I then used as my counter “If they were to offer us national reperprocity, that would be a compromise.” After I explained what reperprocity meant she was shocked to learn that it wasn’t. Explaining that carrying a shell casing into Mass could get me arrested and charged with a felony was even more shocking to her.

She is no longer a slave to the media propaganda.

---

Then we have the gun infringing busy bodies. These are those that know that the best thing for society is to remove guns from your hands. They believe this so firmly that they will lie, cheat, and steal in order to bring this about.

These are the day to day drones that buzz around Everytown, Mom’s Demands, Giffards, and the like. They believe it is their duty to take your guns away from you.

They can attend events where their organization is paying for armed guards and think “that’s ok” because the armed guards are “better” than those gun nuts. These people believe all of the propaganda and work diligently to make society “safer” by removing guns from you.

I believe that my representatives and senators fall into this category. To attribute more to them would require they be sharper than they’ve shown themselves to be.

---

The next level is the liar and cheat. These are the people that are knowingly creating lies in order to modify society. These are the people that will intentionally conflate a suicide in a school parking lot by a 40yo man with a “school shooting”.

These are the liars that claim there have been more mass shootings this year than days. They actually claim there is more than one per day.

They get there by using bad data and bad definitions. They talk about the real mass shootings with lots of victims and then in the very next breath talk about a “mass shooting” where 10 gang bangers were exchanging fire with each other, no deaths and one injured.

Not the video I was looking for. The video in question shows an incident where gang members are running to cars to grab weapons. Lots and lots of rounds fired at each other. No signs that anybody was hit. When you hear the sirens start to approach they ditch guns in cars. Lock the cars and calmly walk away.

These people lie using statistics. “The ATF reports that there has been over a 1000% increase in ghost gun traces.”. They never tell us if these were home manufactured firearms or if they are firearms whose serial numbers have been removed. They also don’t tell us why a gun with no serial number is being sent to the ATF for a trace.

And finally, they don’t tell us that the reason for the vast increase in traces of ghost guns is that they are now asking law enforcement to send in trace requests for “ghost” guns. The intent to be to drive up the numbers.

So we don’t know if 1000% means that there was 10 traces in 2018 and there were 100 traces in 2022 or if there were 10,000 traces in 2018 and 100,000 in 2023. When people want to lie with statistics they use the method that gets the results they want.

If the numbers are small they will list percentages. Using percentages small changes in the absolute number make for large changes in percentages. If the percentage change is small but the number is large, they use the absolute number because people don’t have good feel for raw numbers.

The entire goal of this group of people is to create a narrative that paints gun owners and people that want to defend themselves as “evil” and bad.

---

At the top are the manipulators. I attribute true evil to them. They don’t want you to have guns for deeply personal reasons. Often they think it is an obstacle to their goals.

I talk about “polite police” from time to time. The less likely a populace is to be armed, the less polite the police are. The more likely the citizens are armed, the more likely the police will be polite.

I stopped in at the local cop shop the other day to speak with the chief. It took only a few minutes to get in to see him. I had my EDC on me. Did he see it? I don’t know. Did it matter?

No.

It didn’t matter because my ability to act didn’t mean I was going to act.

There is a joke about a game warden coming up on a woman and her young son fishing on the lake. She was sitting there reading a book while her son fished. There were a couple of poles in the boat but only the son was actually fishing. The warden asked to see their licenses.

The woman got out her son’s license and showed it to the game warden.

“Where’s yours?”

“I don’t have one. I don’t fish and I haven’t been fishing.”

“Well I see you have the equipment to fish so I’m going to write you up for fishing without a license.”

She argued a little bit but gave in at last.

“Just to let you know warden, when I get back to shore I’m going to file rape charges against you.”

“What!?!?!?”

“You have the equipment so you must have done it….”

The point being what we all know. It isn’t the equipment that does evil, it is the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.

The manipulators at the top are evil. These are the ones that are fighting not only to disarm us but to make self-defense and defense of others impossible.

These are the people that are fighting to change the meaning of our Constitution in order to remove the protections it guarantees to use.

These are the people that make the claim that the second only applies to Militias and holds that line in court for decades. When that is overturned they switch to “But we have a good and laudable reason for this infringement.” They convince the courts to balance our rights away.

These are the people that change rules, ordinances and laws in order to moot cases to keep them from the Supreme Court.

Today I read their words in court filings and my blood boils.

“Magazines aren’t arms” because why? The Supreme Court has already given their opinion that things like magazines, ammunition, reloading supplies and such are all “arms” within the scope of the Second Amendment.

“It doesn’t matter if it is in common use, it is unusually dangerous”. No, the Supreme Court has said that in order for an arm to be outside of the scope of the Second Amendment it has to be both unusually dangerous and uncommon.

“The laws of Merry Old England in the 1600’s are part of the history and tradition of the Second Amendment.” Again, no. The Supreme Court has stated that history and tradition around the founding. This is 1791 when the Second was ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The end of the founding era is 1826 when the last of the founding fathers died. Laws from around the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment, 1868, can be used to support laws from 1791.

“A sensitive place is anywhere we say it is.” The Supreme Court has commented on this. After reading Bruen for the first time I read “sensitive place” and predicted that it would be come an attack vector. It has.

At every step of the way, these manipulators have used every trick they have. They have bent language to mean what it doesn’t mean. One they recently used in Duncan v. Bonta is that by analyzing the written documents of a time period they can assign a numerical value to the “normal” usage of a word.

In this they analyze “bear” and “to bear” in the context of arms. From the statistical analysis they claim that the term “to bear arms” is most commonly used in the context of the military. Since that is the most common usage that must be the one meant in the Second Amendment which means that you don’t have the right to bear arms, only the militia.

NSFW

I’m a dirty old man. I like music with a bit of spice in it.

The Merry Wives of Windsor

Misbehavin’ Maidens

Steeleye Span

Judge Virginia M. Kendall, for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District opened her mountmouth and removed all doubt as to her abilities.

The case is No. 22 C 4775, Robert Bevis, et all v. City of Naperville, Illinois and Jason Arres, in his official capacity as Chief of Police. It is a challenge to the city of Naperville passing their own little “assault weapons ban”. They could do this because Illinois does not have a preemption law for stricter gun laws.

History

On 2022-08-16, after Bruen was decided, the city of Naperville, IL passed an ordinance to prohibit the local commercial sale of assault weapons.

The ordinance reads like an Everytown press release, or the maybe the Gun Violence Archive. You know, those people that consider a drug deal gone wrong in a bus yard to be a “school shooting”. For justification they have 13 “Whereas” clauses that report that a shooting took place. Many with AR-15 style rifles. 13 over 10 years that is.

The City then takes the stance that it is acceptable to ban the sale of a class of arms because “keep and bear” doesn’t include buy, sell, or make. Those founding fathers only meant that people could continue to keep and bear the arms they already had, not to acquire any more.

Clause 16 mentions the Federal AWB from 1994 through 2004. They point out that the AWB survived constitutional challenges but all were rejected for lack of standing. They conveniently forget that Heller was specifically designed to stop that type of rejection. Heller affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not reserved to the state or “well regulated militia.”

17 mentions four cases where the circuit courts upheld AWB on state and local levels. All of which took place prior to Bruen and all of which used “means-end” which is explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court. Remember that Bruen didn’t create a new way of interpreting the second amendment, it affirmed the Heller decision which said “text, history and tradition”.

Clause 18 is a doozy. From Heller “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.” but the city of Naperville did just that. They say that assault weapons didn’t exist in 1791, were rare prior to 2004 and that the use of “assault rifles” in mass shootings “indicates that assault rifles are uncommon and unacceptably dangerous”.

I think they are trying to say that if a criminal uses a particular arm in the commission of a crime that it makes the arm “uncommon and unacceptably dangerous”.

They then explain how an AWB is illegal for them to pass, so instead they are just going to ban the sale of “assault weapons”.

They have the standard list of things that make a rifle an “assault rifle” in their eyes.
Assault Rifle Ordinance

Memorandum Opinion and Order

The order denies a request for a TRO and a preliminary injunction based on allegations that the Naperville ordinance violates the rights of the plaintiffs (Good guys).

The Judge starts by telling us that mass shootings are common and “assault weapons” are used to commit mass shootings. She then footnotes her use of the term “assault weapon” with “The Court will use the terms, as they are widely accepted in modern parlance and effectively convey the substance of the bans.”

It should be noted that she is correct, everybody knows exactly what we are talking about when we talk about “assault weapon ban”, we are talking about the banning of firearms with scary appearances or which are perceived as scary by infringers or their useful idiots. It totally ignores the actual definition of “assault rifle”. The propagandists have won this battle in this court.

In order for a plaintiff to be granted a TRO or an injunction “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

This is the standard and is quoted in almost every case where a TRO or injunction is requested.

She denies the request because:

…although the plaintiffs have standing to bring this lawsuit, they are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim because Naperville’s Ordinance and the Protect Illinois Communities Act are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition.

Humm, let’s see the proof there judge. This isn’t a question of the what the definition of “is” is.

So now we get to the fun part, taking her arguments apart.

The Supreme Court first recognized that this provision[, the second amendment,] enshrines an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller

Incorrect, as has been pointed out many times in the past, Heller affirmed that the second amendment guaranteed and individual right. Until late in the 20th century nobody claimed that the second amendment was a group right. It made no sense. Then in the late 1900’s courts started striking down second amendment cases for lack of standing.

See the discussion above about Naperville’s assertions about the federal AWB.

It wasn’t until Heller that the Supreme court was given an opportunity to tell the inferior courts “The People means the People, you dunces!”, an individual right.

One of the things that keeps coming up in these cases is the bad guys using “presumptively lawful” statements out of the Supreme Court to justify their infringements. The court must answer the question that is asked of it. They can’t start answering other questions. It doesn’t work that way.

This is why the Miller opinion says that nobody told the court that short barrelled shotguns or any shotguns are used in military/militia contexts. They knew that to be the case, they just couldn’t rule on it because it wasn’t in evidence. In the same way, the court can tell the inferior courts how to form their opinions, how to interpret the law, but they can’t just reach out and rule something unlawful if it isn’t the question before the court.

When the Supreme court says that “forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as …” is presumptively lawful, that only means that they haven’t ruled on the constitutionality of that restriction, yet.

Often those words are clues that they want somebody to bring that challenge to them. The sensitive place splurge by infringing states is likely to get “sensitive places” challenged at the Supreme Court. If that happens, the court might very well rule that only very very limited places are “sensitive”.

Here she goes again with “New standard of applying the Second Amendment.” The Second Amendment was always an individual right, that right was stolen from The People. In Heller they got it back. Heller told the courts to use text, history and tradition. The inferior courts instead decided on “means-end”. Bruen told the inferior courts that the two-step methodology of means-end was “one step too many.”

No more means-end.

To quote Virginia quoting Thomas in Bruen, the appropriate standard now is:

When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation

Page 15 of her opinion is some serious mental gymnastics. She admits that the Seven Circuit court was using means-end and that the Supreme Court said that was not the right way to judge second amendment cases. She then goes on to say that because the Seventh Circuit Court used means-end for at least five years, there must be something to be salvaged from all that “good law”.

She is attempting to see if Friedman is “still good law”. She does a partial pull quote:

we think it better to ask whether a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’ and whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense.
— Seventh Circuit court in Friedman

What she left out, which might be important “But instead of trying to decide what “level” of scrutiny applies, and how it works, inquiries that do not resolve any concrete dispute, we think it better…”

So the Seventh Circuit court was discussing how to use means-end (“level” of scrutiny). This is, again, explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in Bruen.

Because of her pull quote, Virginia believes that she can figure out if the Seventh Circuit court used means-end or if they rejected the question based on whether the arm(s) were covered under the second amendment. This is incorrect. It doesn’t matter what the seventh said prior to Bruen. Post Bruen the courts are required to first determine if the law in question touches upon the second amendment.

The strong implication of the Supreme Court’s opinion is that it is better to over extend the second amendment than to under extend it.

See the multiple rulings from the Supreme court in regards to censorship. The government doesn’t actually have to censor something for it to infringe on first amendment rights, the fact that a law exists that has a “chilling effect” is enough.

Interestingly, Naperville conceded that if the Seventh Circuit used means-end in Friedman then Friedman is bad law. The judge leans towards using Friendman to exclude “assault weapons” from the scope of the second amendment.

Having waded through all of that, she gets it right:

Friedman cannot be reconciled with Bruen. The explanation that semiautomatic weapons were not common in 1791 is of no consequence. The Second Amendment “extends … to … arms … that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 412 (2016) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 582). Relatedly, the Supreme Court has unequivocally dismissed the argument that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” Id. (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 624–25). To the extent that the Seventh Circuit classified the weapon as either “civilian” or “military,” the classification has little relevance. And the arguments that other weapons are available and that fewer assault weapons lower the risk of violence are tied to means-end scrutiny—now impermissible and unconnected to text, history, and tradition. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2127. Accordingly, this Court must consider the challenged assault-weapon regulations on a tabula rasa.

“tabula rasa” means “an absence of preconceived ideas or predetermined goals; a clean slate” – Oxford Languages.

Now she goes off the rails. She lists the classes of prohibitions that are allowed. She pulls these from Heller because Bruen did not explicitly displace the examples provided in Heller

1. “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill”;
2. “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”;
3. “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”; and
4. bans on weapons that are not “in common use.”

From this she concludes:

Under this framework, Naperville’s Ordinance and the Protect Illinois Communities Act are constitutionally sound. The text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly “dangerous” weapons are unprotected.9 See U.S. Const. amend. II; Heller, 554 U.S. at 627.

In the case of Oregon where the state used a long list of laws, regulations, and ordinances from Duke LawDuke Center for Firearms Law. It seems this judge read the same list. She starts with William Blackstone. The words she wants out of this are “dangerous or unusual weapons”. That “or” in there is extremely important to the infringers. If the case is that an arm must be “dangerous and uncommon” then any arm that is common is covered by the second amendment’s plain text. If the courts or infringers can get that wording changed to “dangerous or uncommon” then they focus on showing that the arm is “dangerous”.

Bruen and Heller are clearly stating that a weapon must be both. It must be both unusually dangerous and uncommon before it is no longer within the scope of the second amendment.

Fortunately for us, Blackstone was writing of English common law prior to 1791. While much of American law is based on English Common Law, they are not the same. The Supreme court has explicitly stated that the only laws regarding bans are from the time of the ratification, 1791.

She then goes on to say that the use of guns was not common for self defense in founding era. Instead people used knives and clubs. So laws, regulations, and ordinances regulating the use, carry, or possession of knives or clubs is the same as a gun ban/regulation.

Her first actually listed weapons ban is from the early 1800s. A ban on “Bowie knives”. These Bowie knife bans came about after the Vidalia Sandbar Fight which happened in September of 1827. The last founding father(s) died on July 4th, 1826. This ban is more than a year late to be included in Bruen approved history and tradition.

Of course she has to do the standard game of quoting from rules that say that the government has the power to prohibit weapons that are “dangerous and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence.” and out of the other side of her mouth tell us that the weapon is too dangerous because it is used in modern civilized warfare and contributes to the common defense.

She then conflates booby trap guns with keeping and bearing arms. I.e. a law that made it illegal to set traps with guns should allow the government to now ban the bearing and keeping of arms.

Excuse me while I wipe up some coffee:

The muzzle velocity of an assault weapon is four times higher than a high-powered semiautomatic firearm.

So a semi-automatic rifle fires a round that travels faster than a round fired from a high-powered semi-automatic firearm?

She continues with “high-capacity magazines share similar dangers. … high-capacity magazines led to five times the number of people shot and more than twice as many deaths…” Damn, that is a super duper magic box and spring.

Note that they are using the language of “gun accessory” to describe magazines. I have pistols that will not function without a magazine. Yet they consider that to be just an “accessory.” The reason is clear, if it is an accessory, then it isn’t an arm covered by the second amendment.

Here we come to the meat of her opinion. She uses “and” instead of “or”

Assault-weapons and high-capacity magazines regulations are not “unusual,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2129 (Kavanaugh, concurring), or “severe,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 629. The federal government banned assault weapons for ten years. Today, eight states, the District of Columbia, and numerous municipalities, maintain assault-weapons and high-capacity magazine bans—as more jurisdictions weigh similar measures. Because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons and high-capacity magazines are particularly dangerous weapon accessories, their regulation accords with history and tradition. Naperville and Illinois lawfully exercised their authority to control their possession, transfer, sale, and manufacture by enacting a ban on commercial sales. That decision comports with the Second Amendment, and as a result, the plaintiffs have not shown the “likelihood of success on the merits” necessary for relief. See Braam, 37 F.4th at 1272 (“The district court may issue a preliminary injunction only if the plaintiff demonstrates ‘some’ likelihood of success on the merits.” (emphasis added)); Camelot Bonquet Rooms, Inc. v. United States Small Business Administration, 24 F.4th 640, 644 (7th Cir. 2022) (“Plaintiffs who seek a preliminary injunction must show that … they have some likelihood of success on the merits.”).

So there you have it. Fancy boxes with springs can be banned because the second amendment doesn’t cover gun accessories that are unusually dangerous or unusual. She does the same with a subset of semi-automatic rifles.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Judge Virginia M. Kendall, Case: 1:22-cv-04775

Update

I cleaned up a couple of wrong words. These are marked with deleted and inserted markup. If you look in the actual source these deletes/inserts actually have a time date stamp saying exactly when I made the changes.

There were a couple of missing close tags where I accidently allowed italics to run on. I sometime have the same thing happen with bold markup. Lots of this is that I write my articles in HTML and not visual mode. The visual mode doesn’t give me as much control and sometimes is not an actual representation of what you will see.

Finally, It isn’t clear from this article but the Plaintiffs(good guys) have standing because one of the plaintiffs is “Law Weapons” a gun store in the city of Naperville.

Columbus students take gun safety course at elementary school

We’ve seen these headlines before, generally it means that some gun infringer has gotten permission to go into the schools and spout off about how horrible guns are. How they need to tell the school if there are any guns in their home and other such crap.

Not this time, NBC 4 in Columbus Ohio is reporting that the schools brought in actual gun people to give classes in gun safety. Of course the used the NRA safety training for children.

• Stop
• Don’t touch
• Run away
• Find/tell an adult

This is the gist of the Eddy Eagle program. NRA is not mentioned, that would be a bit to much to expect, but still, real gun safety education in the schools.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

There is a long running joke in the gun community that “my safety is between my ears.” The idea being that if you follow the the four rules religiously if there is an unintended discharge it will not harm anybody or anything.

One of the most important rules in this is to keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

Messing around with the trigger of any loaded and cocked firearm is an invitation for an unintended discharge.

This Houston man has created a device that fits around the trigger with enough “meat” behind the trigger to keep the trigger from moving back past the break point.

At first glance, this looks like a sort of neat second safety. Or a method to add a safety to a firearm that doesn’t have a safety.

Consider your old SAA Colt revolver. Push this device over the trigger and now you have to remove the device before you can do most anything. Sounds good. It might even work on some firearms.

Where it fails is on all firearms that can be cocked with the trigger forward. And hopefully you don’t end up breaking your firearm by attempting to cock it while the device prevents the trigger from moving backwards.

But let’s take as our example the wonderful Glock. You want that “extra” bit of safety. So you slap in a mag, cock the weapon and it is now “hot” As you attempt to push this device around the trigger it goes a little wrong and “BANG!” there is a new hole. Hopefully not in anything you care about.

Assuming you did manage to get this thing on your Glock you hear a bang in the night from downstairs. You grab your Glock and need to remove the device. You attempt to push it out with your trigger finger and “BANG!” Your pistol goes off because your finger pushed the device off the trigger and then continued in to press the trigger proper.

No gun safety device should ever be used around a trigger when a depression of said trigger would cause the gun to fire. Just don’t do it.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]