Example Lawfare

B.L.U.F. When a family is hurting, they want somebody to pay. It is easier to put that anger against a company than a dead body. Especially when there are blood vultures at work.


History

On April 15, 2021, some asshole entered the FedEx facility in Indianapolis, Indiana, and proceeded to start shooting. Eight people were killed, and more were wounded. The asshole then killed himself.

He had two rifles with him, both AR-15-style semi-automatics.

Shortly after, the blood vultures started to congregate. President Biden had flags flown at half-mast. The usual suspects jumped up and down screaming that guns were the problem.

To this day I’ve never had a single firearm give me a motive for anything it has done. That’s because all of them are inanimate objects. Any evil attributed to a firearm is a figment of a human’s mental derangement.

Bains v. American Tactical, Inc

Read More

Just What Do All These Legal Cases Mean?

B.L.U.F. — What’s with all these court cases and what does it all mean in the grand scheme of things?


How Come We Have To Work So Hard At This?

If everything was as it should be, when the Bruen Court issued their opinion all of the states would have looked at the laws they currently had in place, looked at what would not pass muster, and then would have created new legislation to bring the state into line with the Bruen decision. The infringing states could not bring themselves to do the right thing.

In fact some (all?) of the infringing states jumped on the “Bruen Response” bandwagon to see who could do the most harm to gun owners the fastest.

This starts the long, slow march back to the Supreme Court to get more of these infringements knocked down.

There is a game that is played to accomplish this because the infringing states want to continue to infringe.

In the best of their imaginary worlds only the people they control who are loyal to them would have guns. And those firearms would not be allowed out of the control of dear leader. In their warped world view a cop would travel to work on public transport, they would be issued their duty weapon(s) and would then do a tour. At the end, they would turn in all their duty weapons and ride public transport home.

There would be nobody to stand up to their will.

To get this they need to disarm The People. This means passing regulations that disarm the people.

The Fight, Standing

Read More

Another One Bites the Dust — USA v. Connelly


B.L.U.F. Another case where a Judge used Bruen to come to the correct decision. This This one is §922(g)3 and §922(d)2. This is a criminal case in front of a US Federal Judge for the Western District of Texas. It highlights how case law works.


History

On December 28, 2021 the El Paso Police Department responded to a 911 call. Transcripts are not available nor needed. When the police arrived they heard several gunshots and observed Paola’s husband with a shotgun at the neighbors house. The police then arrested Paola’s husband.

From this they managed to get permission to conduct[ed] a protective sweep of Connelly’s house &mcite; Order on Motion for Reconsideration P. 1. The cops found evidence of firearms and marijuana. From this they called in the ATF.

The ATF searched the house and found 1.2 grams of marijuana, 0.21 grams of marijuana extract, 27.74 grams of “THC Edible” and 37.74 grams of suspected psilocybinId. as well as multiple firearms and ammunition.

I have no idea if that is “a lot” or almost nothing. According to my sources this is a little low for medical use. In Texas up to two oz. is a class B misdemeanor with a maximum punishment of 180 days in jail and a $2000 fine. Paola is facing two felony counts with upto 12 years on each count.

Paola through her husband under the bus, accusing him of smoking crack. She was then asked about her own drug use and told the cops …she uses marijuana on a regular basis “to sleep at night and to help her with anxiety.”Id. at 2.

If this was the locals then it would have likely meant nothing more than the loss of her pot. Because the feds were involved, it now became a felony charge:

Based on these facts, Connelly was indicted with one count of possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Superseding Indictment 1–2. Connelly was also indicted with one count of transferring a firearm and ammunition to her husband, an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3). Id. at 2–3.
Id. at 2

The second count, transfer or sale to a prohibited person is charged because the lived together. Since he had access and could have gotten the firearms the state argues that she had transferred the firearms to her husband. It is unclear who owned the shotgun he used.

October 18, 2022 Paola filed to have the charges dismissed. Her argument was that post Bruen §922(g)(3) and §922(d)(3) were unconstitutional under the second amendment because the denied her rights to keep and bear arms while the state was unable to find an similar regulation from the founding era. She also argued that the law was unconstitutional under the fifth amendment because it was vague. What does addicted mean? What does “user” mean?

She points out that under the dictionary definition, user could mean anybody that ever took a toke.

Her motion to have her indictment dismissed was denied on December 21, 2022.

The Second Try

Read More

Leading Cause of Death in Children?

So this has popped up over and over again. There is another study from KFF saying that 1 in 5 (19%) of people say that a family member was killed by a gun. These number are scary scary numbers. Has something happened?

Well I started digging through the CDC and NEJM letter and numbers and it is just to much work for me right now. I’ve got paying clients that need that time. Instead I’ll give you a YouTube video that covers much of what I was planning on saying:

The current population of the United States is around 331,900,000. If 19% of those people have had a family member killed by a gun that means 63,061,000 people have had somebody in their family killed by a gun. Given that there are around 45,000 gun related deaths per year, this number seems a little high.

The average family size in the US is currently around 3.1. That doesn’t really help. Looking at household size by city shows that doesn’t make a real difference either. It looks like race doesn’t really make that much difference either.

So let’s extend that from immediate family to extended family. We move to two generates, that gives us 4 + 3 + 3 or 10. If we go to three generations that takes use to 10 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 22. So we will use 22 as our base number for extended family.

That gives us 15,086,363 extended families in the US. If 19% of those families had a gun related death that would mean that
2,866,408 families had a gun related death in that family.

Again 45,000 deaths per year. It would take 63+ years to reach that number of deaths.

Given what they asked and how they asked it, my guess is that they are polling urban black neighborhoods at a rate that is over represented. In urban black centers there are often 100% rates of families having had somebody in their family shot.

The poll looks to be legit but the numbers they give just do not pass the sniff test.

The Power of Bruen

In 10 years I hope the Second Amendment community can look back at the Bruen decision and celebrate all that it did for us.

After Heller we all looked at there being a huge wave of getting our rights back. Unfortunately after McDonald it all stopped. The state found a way.

That two step process of means-end was horrific. It allowed any infringement to stand as long as the state said “it will promote the public good.” Yep, that’s good enough.

I keep using the phrase “Just how much were you raped, Mrs. Jones, we have to balance that against…”

The state has lost on the history and tradition front. You can see it in their filings. Over and over again the same regulations are presented and time after time they are discounted. The fact is that there were no gun control laws in the 1700’s. Gun control didn’t really get started until post civil war when it was used to disarm the newly freed and former freedmen.

This leads to what the state is attempting to do at this time.

First, they are attempting to change the era from which they pull regulations. If they can get the court to accept reconstruction era regulations then they will win in the infringing states/courts.

Next they are attempting to get the courts to accept regulations that are not a match but could be twisted with enough leverage to match their current infringement. To do this they have to get the court to accept that their infringement is there because of something new. This is likely to make some headway but not a lot. With Bruen behind us and enough judges with good moral conscious on the circuit courts it is unlikely to prevail.

The state is also trying to hide in the weeds by saying that certain infringements are acceptable because the Supreme Court didn’t directly say anything about it. This is SCOTUS saying that things are presumptively allowed. Presumptively allowed means that the court didn’t rule on that thing so is just going to allow it to stand, for now.

This is the argument that the state is using about “Good moral character”. Since the Supreme Court ONLY ruled against showing cause and used the term “lawful user” this means that “good moral character” is also allowed. Which the state will now define in such a way as to make it so painful that it is almost impossible to get through.

We are seeing sensitive places as expected. That is going to die. Not because the states will stop using it, but it is not a long term winning strategy for the state.

The thing that Bruen really did is that it leveled the playing field for the first time in over a decade. The state hates playing fair. They know they will lose.

The biggest argument that the state is pushing is that it is the plaintiff’s burden to prove. Over and over again in these filings the state says things like “The plaintiffs have failed to prove” or “The plaintiffs have offered no evidence.”

Everything that seems to be holding for the state right now is based on trying to flip the burden back on the plaintiffs.

We live in interesting times. We are winning.

Sorry for the filler. I’ve been researching the “More children die of gun violence than any other cause” lie. It is taking me a little bit of time to do so because the data is difficult to manipulate. I’ve got most of it downloaded and inserted into a database where I can actually process it.

Update on Rupp v. Bonta

This case was held at the Ninth Circuit court pending the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bruen. The Supreme Court then Granted certiorari to Duncan v. Bonta, vacated the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court, then Remanded it back to the Ninth Circuit court to do the right thing. The Ninth Circuit Court, instead of making an opinion themselves vacated and remanded the District Court’s opinion (which found FOR Duncan on text, history, and tradition) with instructions to have the parties re-argue the case.

At the same time, the Ninth Circuit Court vacated and remanded Rupp v. Bonta back to the district court for for further proceedings consistent with” Bruen.Defendant’s Combined Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motions to Exclude Testimony Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702

Rupp v. Bonta is still in progress. The state submitted testimony from 12 different “expert” witnesses. The plaintiffs(good guys) have filed motions under Federal Rules Of Evidence 702 to exclude the testimony of 5 of those “experts”. Of course the state objects.

The state is manipulating the question in front of the court. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 – Supreme Court 2022 at 2126 The state restates this as i.e., that the challenged regulation prevents law-abiding citizens from “keep[ing]” or “bear[ing]” protected “Arms,” Id. Opposition to exclude at 10.

I don’t remember the word “protected” in the Second Amendment. The actual text of Bruen affirming and quoting Heller says that if the plain text covers the conduct, it is protected conduct. Noting about “protected arms”.

The concept of the Second Amendment only covering “protected arms” is a new argument. It is designed to allow the inferior courts to make a determination if a particular arm is protected, if it is not then the conduct is not protected.

The state continues their argument that they should be allowed a “more nuanced” approach to matching historical regulations because there is an “unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technology changes.” Here the state is claiming that semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines and scary looks is “dramatic technology changes”. Dramatic is something new that happened rapidly. Semi-automatic firearms, or “self loading” firearms have existed for at least a 100 years. It wasn’t dramatic. It was a simple progression.

Maybe Star Trek’s phasors would be dramatic technology change but even that is not clear. We are already working on laser weapons.

There is no “unprecedented societal concerns”. The busy-bodies have always had their noses in other peoples business for years. Murder has been around since before recorded history. Mass murder has been going on for a very long time.

And the media has told us that “mass shootings” aren’t a real concern because the media is making more of two state representatives being expelled for obstructing of an official proceeding. The President of the United States has been more upset that people might be angry with transgenders than of the shooting. So it must not be a big deal.

For those that need context, any murder is a big thing. Be it one person or a dozen or a hundred dozen, murder is wrong and the perpetrator(s) should be punished to the full extent of the law. Not all homicides are murder.

Thus, contemporary public-safety concerns remain relevant to determining whether a challenged law warrants a “more nuanced” historical analysis and is comparably justified.Id. at 13 The state so wants a multi-step process back. Means-end is the only way they can continue to infringe.

Mr. Busse provides expert testimony about semiautomatic, centerfire rifles and the features and accessories that can qualify them as assault weapons under the AWCA. Busse Report ¶¶ 11–21. Mr. Busse explains that none of the prohibited features, parts, or accessories—including a pistol grip on a rifle, a thumbhole stock, a flash suppressor on the muzzle of a rifle, a forward pistol grip, or a shortened barrel that would render the rifle less than 30 inches in length—is necessary to operate a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle for self-defense. Id. ¶¶ 12–15, 17–18, 21, 24. Plaintiffs do not argue that Mr. Busse’s testimony should be excluded due to inadequate qualifications. Instead, they argue that his expert opinions are not relevant under Bruen. They are wrong.
Id. at 14

The state is saying that as long as you get a barrel and the ability to load and fire it you don’t need any of those fancy things like a pistol grip. There is NOTHING in this guys testimony that has anything to do with whether or not this is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. There is nothing in his testimony that has anything to do with historical regulation.

What this all comes down to is that the state recognizes that there are no historical regulations that match an AWB or a magazine ban or a “unsafe” handgun ban. Since they haven’t been able to find those historical regulations, they have to attack the question of “is it an arm?” and “is there something that allows us to bring up things other than historical regulations to support our infringement.”

Infringers got to infringe

Hawaii has been one of the most horrible locations for gun rights for decades. After McDonald they were suppose to be a “May Issue” state but when the records were checked they had not issued a single CCW permit in years and years and years.

They are worse than California, New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts.

After almost a year they were proud to announce that they had issued 34(?) CCWs.

Of course infringers have to infringer.

Attorney General Anne Lopez told Hawaii News Now that House Bill 984 is intended to ensure Hawaii law is consistent with a recent Supreme Court decision. In the so-called Bruen decision, the Supreme Court overturned broad state restrictions on carrying guns in public. Now Green and other lawmakers are trying to create more protections ― for specific places.

The measure would bans guns in “sensitive places,” including schools, government buildings, libraries, parks, eateries and bars with alcohol, and public transportation. It would also require mandatory insurance coverage and there are felony penalties.

So they are following in the footsteps of NY, NJ and all the other states that have decided that they will issue a you a CCW but only after you prove you are good enough and then you’ll only be able to do so if you can avoid all the “legal gun free zones”.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

Granata v. Campbell MA Roster.

B.L.U.F. A win in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Case challenging the MA handgun roster.


The FPC scored a win in a notoriously anti-gun rights First Circuit Court of Appeals. They heard oral arguments on the Tuesday the 4th and vacated the district court’s opinion yesterday, Friday 2023-04-07.

The case was first decided in May of 2022, before Bruen and we see the same standard path. The court first said that it assumed without deciding that the conduct was protected by the Second Amendment.

At that point the District Court moved on to decide the level of scrutiny required. Being the district court of Massachusetts of course the court decided to use intermediate scrutiny which of course allowed them to find the infringement “constitutional”

The date of dismissal is sort of interesting, it looks almost as if the court was rushing to get its decision out before the Bruen decision was published.

The FPC appealed to the First Circuit Court on June 15th, 2022. This was still before Bruen.

The Circuit Court had all of the documents in place by middle of July, less than a month after the District Court’s decision.
It wasn’t until August that a briefing schedule was set.

Another interesting case to follow because it shows just how many cases are being overturned due to Bruen