Ok, I was just cutting up onions in a dusty room.  Nothing to see here, just move along.

An interesting article because of New Hampshire law.  “Gun Free Zone” has no legal standing except for certain federal buildings, like post offices and courts.  There is no restriction on firearms within the capital buildings as well.

Going into a medical facility with a firearm is not illegal.  If your firearm is seen then the staff can request you leave.  If you don’t leave you can be trespassed.   This man got in trouble because he had his hand on his firearm when the police approached which took this to a different level.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

Just an opinion piece on the Oregon Supreme Court allowing the county judges injunction to remain.  It is reported that their opinion read much like Alito’s did.  That they are going to let this play out within the county court and they will get involved only after the case has been decided based on the merits of the case

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

California AG Rob Bonta whines that the Fifth Circuit court found parts of 18 USC §922(g) unconstitutional. “Their legal analysis is poor, their conclusions are misguided and their outcomes are dangerous and that is a problem.”  The media agress with him.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

MSNBC miss reports on the Fifth Circuit court’s ruling in order to get the feels.  Forgetting the difference between having a TRO for domestic violence and being convicted of domestic violence.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

Over in Illinois county Judge T. Scott Webb issued an injunction against Illinois’ kill carry/gun ban.  Unfortunately this only applies for the people named on the suit.  So far the injunctions are being restricted to the plaintiffs, but they are happening.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

This was covered before.  There is more to this story other than a dumpster full of firearms.  It is unlikely we’ll know until the case is decided in court.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

A bit of balanced reporting where they don’t make the FFL out to be a merchant of death

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

Another strand of spaghetti that was thrown at the wall in NJ was blocked when District Judge Zahid Quraishi issued an injunction based on the PLCAA.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

The ATF has released a report that I’ve not read yet. The media has decided that it is proof that guns and more importantly, “ghost guns” are horribly dangerous.  The cool thing is that if §922(g) is ruled unconstitutional, all this yap-yap about “Ghost Guns” will be mooted.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

A huge part of the infringers battle plan revolves around making buying, selling, and/or owning gun too expensive for the common person.  One way they do this is to get towns, cities, and counties to pass infringements which then need to be fought in court with  no real cost to the people that passed these infringements.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

You know you done messed up with Miguel tells you that you done messed up. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

I had not actually read measure 114 until today. I’ve been writing from second hand reports instead of actually reading the bill.

B.L.U.F. What is Measure 114? What does it do? What are some of the juice tidbits within?

The preamble lists all the reasons why guns are bad and why gun right should be infringed. Nothing we haven’t seen and heard before. Lots of hand waving to “studies show” plus the standard “it would have been worse if this or that infringement wasn’t in place.”

Section 4

This is the Permit-To-Purchase. The first thing of interest is that it is written in reverse. Instead of stating that you are allowed to purchase unless one or more things disqualifies you, it is instead written as you are only allowed to purchase if you meet a list of qualification that is open ended.

Is not prohibited from purchasing or acquiring a firearm under state or federal law, including but not limited to
successfully completing a criminal background check as described under paragraph (e) of this subsection;

You must successfully complete a background check but other things can be done to exclude you is how this language reads.

The subjective part:

Does not present reasonable grounds for a permit agent to conclude that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant’s mental or psychological state or as demonstrated by the applicant’s past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence;

“reasonably likely to be a danger to self or other”, if you want to buy a gun you are likely to be a danger to self or others. Very very subjective stuff.

You need to fill out and application and sign it in front of the permit agent. You can’t apply by mail. What is asked on the application is pretty intrusive: name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, physical description “andany additional information determined necessary by department rules.”

This implies that the department can decide that they want your social media aliases as well.

You are required to be fingerprinted and the FBI must do the criminal background check. Of course they say the FBI supper duper promises not to keep a copy of the fingerprints or a record of who applied for a permit to purchase.

Here is one of those Soviet style clauses. The idea being that the clause says something really good for the people and then takes it away with the exception.

Within 30 days of receiving an application for a permit under this section, if the permit agent has verified the applicant’s identity and determined that the applicant has met each of the qualifications described in paragraph (1)(b) of this section, the permit agent shall issue the permit-to-purchase.

It sounds like you will have to wait a maximum of 30 days from the time you apply before you are granted your permit-to-purchase. That is not what this clause actually says. It says that if the permit agent has verified that a permit should be granted, they have to grant it within 30 days.

What happens if they are just too busy to do the verification within 30 days? This clause actually says they can take as long as they want.

The permit agent shall report the issuance of a permit under this section to the department, and shall provide to the department a copy of the permit and any information necessary for the department to maintain an electronic searchable database of all permits issued under this section. A permit agent revoking a permit shall report the revocation to the department at the time that notice of the revocation has been sent to the permit holder.

Well what about that, they have started a gun and firearm owners registry. What could ever go wrong with that?

The bill explicitly states that expired and revoked permit records are kept forever.

The firearms training requires that all instructors be certified by a law enforcement agency.

The appeals section is interesting in that there is a 30 day hard deadline for the person appealing to get all the paperwork done and submitted. The petitions filed will be heard and disposed of within 15 judicial day or as soon as practicable thereafter.

Sounds like being understaffed and overworked at the permitting agency is a good enough excuse to deny people their right to keep and bear arms.

Question for FFL holders, if somebody decides not to take possession of a firearm after completing a NICS check and being approved, do you have to notify anybody of that event? According to this bill, an FFL is required to report the actual transfer of the firearm. And yes, they FFL is required to report make, model and serial number. Gun registry for sure.

They already have a universal (except for criminals) background check requirement. This bill now adds a permit-to-purchase requirement.

At least on the private transfer section, if the department can not determine if a person is qualified, they are presumed disqualified. Or stated differently, delayed no longer defaults to proceed after time expires, instead i defaults to denied.

They are banning standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Fortunately my lever action rifles are excluded from this if they use a tube magazine.

The entire thing is nasty, but they knew it was an infringement when they wrote it:

SECTION 12. If any provision of this 2022 Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The people hereby declare that they would have adopted this Chapter, notwithstanding the unconstitutionality, invalidity and ineffectiveness of any one of its articles, sections, subsections, sentences or clauses.

Yep, they wrote this monstrosity such that if any part is found unconstitutional it doesn’t change the rest of the bill. Each infringement must be challenged in order for the law to be overturned. There might be cases where a judge will strike down more than just a single clause, but not always.

Measure-114 PDF Warning

B.L.U.F. Measure 114 is on hold for the time being as the Oregon Supreme Court rules to not let the state proceed with the law.

Measure 114 is the gun grabbers dream bill out in Oregon. The gun grabbers were not able to get the legislature to pass it so instead they took it to a popular vote. Mob rule in other words.

There was some upset about how it got onto the ballot but it did. It passed, barely.

So now it is “voter approved” and the media constantly points that out as they discuss the multiple lawsuits that have been filed.

As we’ve discussed in the pass, there are two primary paths through the courts. At the state level there is the lower court, there might be an appeals court, then there is the state supreme court and then over that is the US Supreme Court. At the federal level there are the district courts, over them are the circuit courts of appeal, and above them is the US Supreme Court.

At every level there are three responses the court can give.

1. Dismissed
2. Win
3. Lose

If your case is dismissed or you loose your case you can appeal. The higher court can the grant the appeal or deny it. If that higher court is an intermediate court, you can appeal to the next higher court.

You can appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court. If SCOTUS decides not to hear your case, then your case is over. You can reapply with changes but the Justices have been known to say “if this yoyo applies again, charge them.”

In general, when a court decides they will not hear a case, they just say that. Nothing more. It is unusual when they actually issue an opinion to go along with that decision. This is why the Antonyuk III denial at SCOTUS was so powerful. Alito, with Thomas concurring, told the plaintiffs that their case was not heard for procedural reasons and that if the Second Circuit Court didn’t respond in a timely fashion the plaintiffs should bring the issue back to SCOTUS.

In general, if your case involves the US constitution, you bring your case up through the federal court system. This is what they did in Oregon. The district court did not grant temporary injunctions nor did they grant any injunctions and the cases are moving slowly. The Ninth Circus Court is highly unlikely to hear an appeal and even if they do, they will delay and then rule that the case has to move forward at a pace that makes glaciers moving look like NASCAR racing.

The lawyers dealing with Measure 114 out in Oregon took a second track as well. They brought the case before a county judge. This is the state level equivalent of a district court at the federal level. Lowest tier.

The judge looked it over and using the Oregon constitution ruled that in his opinion, the plaintiffs (good guys) would prevail at trial and granted an injunction blocking Measure 114 from going in to effect.

The state then appealed to the Oregon Supreme court. The Oregon Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. This let the temporary and later preliminary injunctions stay in place.

This week the Oregon Supreme Court issued another ruling/opinion. The state had requested an emergency request to allow them to let the law go into effect.

The Oregon Supreme Court denied the appeal. Measure 114 is enjoined for the time being. Another win.

B.L.U.F. 18 USC §922, the GCA is likely Unconstitutional, and §922(g) which lists prohibited persons should go away and be replaced with something else

In 1963 A. Hidell mail ordered a rifle and a .38 Smith & Wesson Model 10. This man then used the rifle to fire a shot at US Major General Edwin Walker from less than 100ft away.

He missed.

Later that year A. Hidell went to the upper stories of a building in the city and set up a snipers nest. Even though he had once qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines, he had not kept that qualification. When he was honorably discharged from the Marines he was only a “marksman”. His MOS was Aviation Electronics Operator. He was never a “sniper” was never very good with a rifle.

Look at missing his target from less than 100 ft.

On November 22, 1963 A. Hidell was in his snipers nest waiting for his target. A slow moving vehicle. From the sixth floor he took his shots.

One of them hit his target, President John F. Kennedy. His real name was Lee Harvey Oswald. A. Hidell was the name he gave when he purchased his rifle and pistol.

In shock over the assassination of Kennedy which was followed by still more assassinations, the public was horrified to learn that it was “easy to buy a gun”.

“If the gun Oswald would have attempted to purchase those firearms in person, nobody would have sold to him because he gave a false name.”

The push started to eliminate mail order firearms in order to save people and to make society safer.

Oswald was known to law enforcement, had been court martialed, twice, had been in juvenile detention at 12 because he was emotionally disturbed. He was a defector that had come back to the US from Soviet Russia. And he was a communist.

Regardless, the people knew that the real reason that Oswald was able to kill the President of the United States was because of easy mail order access to firearms.

This lead to a push for the first federal gun control since the National Firearms Act of 1934, a tax bill.

Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the US Constitution says:

The Congress shall have power..
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

From this, congress decided to regulate commerce in firearms with the Gun Control Act of 1968

7. It shall be unlawful for any person—
   1. who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
   2. who is a fugitive from justice;
   3. who is an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana or any depressant or stimulant drug (as defined in section 201(v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or narcotic drug (as defined in section 4731(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954); or
   4. who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

   to ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce.

This is the law as it was passed in 1968. What was forbidden of a prohibited person was shipping or transporting firearms or ammunition across state lines.

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

This is what is prohibited today. It is now unlawful to transport, possess, or receive any firearm or ammunition which might affect commerce or be involved with interstate or foreign commerce.

With the clause of “affecting commerce” the law becomes much broader. If you are making firearms for use only in your state you are not covered by interstate commerce. The catch is that if you are selling within your state and somebody buys your firearm instead of one that is covered by interstate commerce, you have affected commerce.

If you are competing with commerce that is federally regulated then you are affecting that commerce and congress thinks that gives them the power to regulate you as well.

The amended GCA adds four more classes of prohibited person.

When we look at the list of prohibited person, the only one that might have constitutional support is “who, being an alien… is illegally or unlawfully in the United States…” (exceptions omitted).

The class of people that belong to “The People” are all legal residents of the US and any US Citizens. Everything else is an attempt at removing a class of persons from “The People”.

Everything in §922(g) is about determining who is and is not virtuous. This is where we have issues.

As a member of society, I would prefer that the bad people be disarmed. There are some strong indicators of who a bad person is. A person that has been convicted of a serious crime involving the use of weapons or other physical threat and those that are mentally unstable are the two groups that I feel should be prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition.

That is NOT what the Constitution says. The Second Amendment says “the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not give any set of persons that is excluded from “The People”. In other places in the Constitution “The People” might be better translated as “Citizens”.

It is clear that the second amendment covered more than just citizens. There are just too many historical examples of people being residents of the United States but having the right to keep and bear arms.

Having stated who I feel should not have firearms, I stand up and say that what I want is not constitutional and as such should not be done.

When a person is convicted of a crime or committed for a mental issue they will either be incarcerated or they will be released on probation.

If a person is incarcerated they have lost many of their freedoms. That includes the right to keep and bear arms. They have lost that right for as long as they are incarcerated.

My humble suggestion is that when a person is released from incarceration that they should be put on probation. The period of probation to be fixed based on the conviction and to include all time remaining on their sentence if they are paroled.

As an example consider a person convicted of rape, kidnapping and robbery and sentenced to 30 years for each count to run concurrently. The probation period for the violent crimes of rape and kidnapping have a 7 years probation and robbery with out a weapon has a 5 year probation period.

If our felon was paroled after 23 years in prison he would be on probation for 7 years till his original release date. Since the three convictions run concurrently there is another 7 years of probation for a total of 14 years that the felon would be on probation.

During this time if the felon is caught with a firearm it will be construed as a violation of their probation. The assumption is that they intended to do harm with that firearm.

At the end of their probation period they are allowed to keep and bear arms once again.

This covers all of the issues, in my opinion. Bad people are prohibited till they prove they are no longer doing bad things. People that aren’t doing bad things aren’t prohibited. It all balances.

Regardless, the GCA is taking hit after hit and is likely to fall soon. There is just to much over reach in §922 that are unlikely to stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

You know what to do-

18 USC §922(g) is the prohibited person section of US federal law. It has 9 different sections, each one addressing one class of people to be denied their rights.

The Constitution says that “The People” is all of the people. The question being asked again and again is who belongs to the class “The People”.

It is clear that a US Citizen is part of “The People”. That implies to me that felons are also part of “The People”.

Do you lose your citizenship if you are wanted by the law? Nope.

Do you lose your citizenship if you partake in the “devil’s lettuce?” Nope.

Do you lose your citizenship if you have ever been in a mental institution? Nope.

Do you lose your citizenship if you have been dishonorably discharged from the military? Nope.

You lose your citizenship when you renounce it.

If you are imprisoned, you lose access to many things. They don’t allow drugs, weapons and many other things. Doesn’t mean those things aren’t getting into prisons, it just means it is against the rules and a prisoner can be punished if they are found breaking those rules.

In addition, we have the question of being an alien. Are the legal aliens living here part of “The People”? How about illegal aliens? Are they?

Originally, §922(g) was about transferring firearms. Now it is about both transferring and possessing.

The government has defined classes of people that they feel should be excluded from “The People”. The short is that they have said that these classes of people are not “virtuous”.

In Soviet Russia they had mental asylums. People were committed if they were mentally unstable. Unfortunately this turned into a catch all for “enemy of the state.” Since the state was wonderful, anybody that spoke out against the state must be crazy. If they were crazy the were committed. This made society “safer”.

If the government can define what is and is not a virtuous person and also define “The People” as only those that are law abiding and virtuous, they can remove any right at will. They just exclude you from “The People” and your rights evaporate.

We now have multiple cases challenging parts of §922(g). In OK, tenth circuit, a district court has ruled §922(g)(3), drug user, as unconstitutional. The fifth circuit court has ruled that §922(g)(8) is unconstitutional. A district judge in the western district of KY, sixth circuit, has found §922(g)(8) unconstitutional.

We need to wait to see if the state appeals these cases. It would not surprise me if Texas does appeal. If they appeal and it gets to the Supreme Court it could be a quick case where TX puts in a lackluster performance and parts of §922(g) go away across the entire country.

Other states which are anti-gun might very well not appeal losses at the district or circuit levels in order to keep the case from getting to the Supreme Court.

Over in California, Judge Benitez just dropped the hammer on the state in a number of cases, 3 IIRC.

The State Defendants are directed to file a brief which identifies the best historical regulation that is a proper analogue and relevantly similar to a (statewide prohibition on a firearm with listed features) (statewide prohibition of an ammunition feeding device or a limit on the amount of ammunition) (statewide background check for buying ammunition). The brief shall be limited to 5 pages and shall be filed with the brief currently due 30 days after the filing of the law list.

I tried to find what “filing of the law list”, regardless, the worse it could be is 30 days from now. The best it could be is just a few days because Benitez ordered all briefings be provided to him with in a short period of time once the ninth circuit court kicked these cases back to him.

At the same time we have a number of states attempting to ban assault weapons and magazines because the are exceptionally deadly/dangerous. We have a bunch of states that are attempting to make their entire state a sensitive place via a patchwork of explicit places that are listed as sensitive.

In all cases that are being tracked by me, we are winning. Not as fast as I would like, but we are winning.

B.L.U.F. Some of the media understands that the NYS CCIA is an overreach that accomplishes nothing.

One of the great stupidities of New York’s current gun-law debate is that existing laws merely required a couple of tweaks for them to prove effective — nowhere more so than in the need for a license-to-carry rule based on objective criteria rather than bias and favoritism.

There are a number of pundits talking about knee-jerk responses by the different states. The states that created a spaghetti bowl of new laws to throw at the wall. The states that created “Kill carry” bills which make it easier to get a CCW but which makes it almost impossible to actually carry anywhere.

The responses are starting to fall into a few categories:

• Sensitive Places
• Good Moral Character
• Prove you are a responsible law abiding citizen
• Expanded training that isn’t available
• Costs increases.
• Attempting to flip who has to prove history and tradition
• That particular thing isn’t covered under the second amendment because it isn’t an “arm” or it is “exceptionally dangerous”

Nobody wants to hear it in the era of “decarceration” and “depolicing,” but one of the major problems facing crime-ridden Democrat-run cities is that many firearms offenses — short of murder — now go largely unpunished: In Philadelphia, 61% of gun cases are dismissed without charges or trial, up from less than 30% as recently as 2016.

Yep, right on target there. If you put the bad guys in jail, they aren’t going to be doing bad things to us.

Of the 4,456 gun arrests NYPD made in 2021, there was at last count one (not a typo!) conviction at trial and far more dismissals (983) than plea deals (698). Statistically speaking, the most likely thing to happen after an arrest for illegally carrying a gun in New York is … nothing.

Imagine that, nearly 4.5 thousand people were arrested in NYC for violating some part of their gun laws in 2021 (pre Bruen) yet only one was taken to trial and convicted.

It is highly likely that the poor saps that did end up being punished after a gun arrest were mostly law abiding, people that caught up by the police because ???.

It reminds me of the stories of construction workers being stopped and frisked. Their pocket knives were found. The cops then did a “flick test” where they attempted to open the knife one handed. If they were able to do so, they worker was jacked up on a weapons violation.

The problem with New York City’s license-to-carry law was never that it was too strict — it was that it was arbitrary and favored the connected. Celebrities such as Steven Seagal and Joan Rivers were issued licenses, but ordinary New Yorkers long found it nearly impossible to get one. This wasn’t a matter of responsible gun ownership — asked in 2003 about the concealed-carry permit he had secured during his mayoral candidacy four decades earlier, William F. Buckley Jr. replied: “I have my pistol permit in my wallet, and no one knows where the gun is.”

The problem with New York City’s license-to-carry law was never that it was too strict — it was that it was arbitrary and favored the connected. Celebrities such as Steven Seagal and Joan Rivers were issued licenses, but ordinary New Yorkers long found it nearly impossible to get one. This wasn’t a matter of responsible gun ownership — asked in 2003 about the concealed-carry permit he had secured during his mayoral candidacy four decades earlier, William F. Buckley Jr. replied: “I have my pistol permit in my wallet, and no one knows where the gun is.”

And here is our words echoed back to us:

The license-holders are not the problem. The criminals are.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

 

Reading media reports is driving me crazy. We’ve got democrats introducing new gun control everyday. We’ve got bad guys winning 2A cases.

We’ve got inflation going through the roof and our government taking victory laps because it isn’t as bad as it was last month.

Nothing but clowns and jokers everywhere you look in DC.

And as recorded:

B.L.A.B. Bottom Line At Bottom

In 1967 a bad dude was arrested in connection to a rape and kidnapping. He was also charged with robbery where he matched the description.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of kidnapping, Count I; and Rape, Count II; and sentenced to serve from twenty to thirty years on each count, to run concurrently. From the judgment and sentence of the court he appeals. Appellant, hereinafter called defendant, was in another information charged with the crime of robbery. After arraignment in the instant case, on motion of the county attorney, the trial on the robbery case was consolidated with the instant case, but thereafter one day prior to the trial of this case separate trials were granted. Defendant was tried and convicted on the robbery charge, from which he is also appealing in the companion case…

Here is the court’s description of the case:

The facts, as they relate to the defense as charged under Counts I and II in the instant case are as follows: On March 3, 1963, the complaining witness a girl eighteen years of age had been working in the concession stand at the Paramount Theatre in downtown Phoenix, and had taken the bus to 7th Street and Marlette. After getting off the bus, she had started to walk toward her home. She observed a car, which afterwards proved to be defendant’s, which had been parked behind the ballet school on Marlette. The car pulled out of the lot, and came so close to her that she had to jump back to prevent being hit. It then parked across from some apartments in the same block. Defendant then left his car, walked toward her, and grabbed her. He told her not to scream, that he would not hurt her. He held her hands behind her back, put a hand over her mouth, and pulled her toward the car. He put her in the back seat, tied her hands and feet, and put a sharp thing to her neck and said to her “Feel this.” She stated it all happened so suddenly that she did not have time to do anything. Defendant was unknown to the complaining witness. She had not seen him before, and he was not related to her in any way.

He then drove the car for about twenty minutes, during which time complaining witness was lying in the back seat crying. When defendant stopped the car, he came to the back seat, and untied her hands and feet. He told her to pull off her clothes. She said “no,” whereupon he started to remove them. She tried to push away from him, but he proceeded to remove her clothing. And, then, after one unsuccessful attempt, made a successful sexual penetration, while she pushed with her hands and was screaming. She testified:
*22 “I was pushing against him with my hands. I kept screaming, I was trying to get away but he was a lot stronger than I was, and I couldn’t do anything.”

He then drove her to 12th Street and Rose Lane, during which time she dressed. She ran home, and told her family, who called the police. Her sister testified that the complaining witness came home that morning crying and looking as if she had been in a fight. On March 13, 1963, defendant was apprehended by the police. The officers who picked him up both testified that he was put into the “line-up” and was identified by complaining witness. Thereafter he confessed that he had forced complaining witness into his car, drove away with her, and raped her. After these statements he signed a statement, partly typed and partly in his own handwriting, which was substantially to the same effect as the testimony of the officers. Defendant offered no evidence in his defense at the trial of his case.

So there you have it. Open and shut case. Dude stalked this girl, grabbed her off the street, forced her into his car, threatened her with a knife, then raped her. He then drove off with her and later released her.

When the cops arrested him, he confessed. At his trial he offered no evidence in his defense.

He was guilt, the judge knew it, the jury knew it. He was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years.

At the same time he confessed to the robbery but didn’t sign a written confession. He was found guilty of the robbery as well and sentenced to 20 to 30 years.

The law at work.

This court appointed lawyer, at trial claimed that his client was to ignorant to knew he had rights under the constitution. That he just talked to the cops and then signed his confession. Because he didn’t have his lawyer present, his confession should not be admitted.

The court disagreed and the confession was entered into evidence.

After he was found guilty, he appealed to the Arizona Supreme court.

Defendant contends that admission into evidence of his written confession was error for the reason that he did not have an attorney at the time the statement was made and signed. The police officers Young and Cooley testified to oral statements made to them before the signing of the written confession. Their testimony was substantially the same. They first saw defendant at his home at 2525 West Maricopa on March 13, 1963, when they went there for the purpose of investigating a rape. They took defendant to the police station and placed him in a “line-up” with “four other Mexican males, all approximately the same age and height, build,” and brought in the complaining witness who identified him as the one who had perpetrated the acts against her. Then they immediately interrogated him. They advised him of his rights. They testified that he made the statement of his own free will; and that there were no threats, or use of force and coercion, or promises of immunity; that they had informed him of his legal rights and that any statement he made might be used against him.

Having weighed all of the arguments and evidence, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in the rape case.

Justice is served, a bad dude is in prison for 20-30 years. A raped woman gets to face the animal and help send him to prison.

Unfortunately, this scumbag wasn’t done abusing the court system. He appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. His claim was that since he didn’t have his lawyer present when he gave his confession that it shouldn’t have been admitted into evidence at trial.

The Supreme Court combined his case with others and in 1966 issued their opinion.

Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.

Bottom Line At Bottom

This is the famous Miranda v. Arizona case. The Supreme court case that lead to “Miranda Warnings”. This is good case law. Unfortunately it meant that Miranda’s conviction was overturned. He was retried with his confession not being admitted into evidence. He as found guilty again and sentenced to 20-30 years. His robbery conviction was not overturned.

A good outcome in the end, both for Case Law and for society by putting this animal away for decades.

State of Arizona v. Ernest Arthur Miranda, 98 Ariz 18(1965) No. 1394

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 – Supreme Court 1966