Weapons seizure uncovered Holyoke family’s love affair with illegally obtained firearms [xCite item=”4RIEKL8F” pos=0]

It is a shitty picture of some lovely old weapons. I haven’t even attempted to identify any of them.

The box of stripper clips in the foreground is nice, the pile of magazines in the sink is interesting. I would be happy to take all of those off his hands.

I’ll spare you the search, the Uzi they are referring to is a semi-auto version. There are no NFA items in the collection.

As always, the reporter is trying to induce a panic. Was this a large collection? Yes. If this was in a free state, the actual collection would not have been an issue. In MA, it is unlikely that they had registered all those firearms. Much less the magazines and ammo.

English is tricky. Were there hundreds of firearms? Were there hundreds of magazines? Were there hundreds of rounds of ammunition? Or did they just lump them all together to get scary numbers? The statement made in the court filing was that there were more than a dozen semi-automatic rifles … in one of the bathrooms …[xCite item=”UKRUHGEW” pos=3]

The state is attempting to make it sound horrible, they are attacking this man for not having all of his guns in safes.

… obsessively collected firearms to the point that they could not store them safely.[xCite item=”UKRUHGEW” pos=4]

I didn’t know there was a “not for money” clause in the don’t buy guns for others.

This man is going to lose his Second Amendment protected rights because the government is infringing on his father’s Second Amendment protected rights.

I didn’t find what the father was convicted of doing that made him a prohibited person. It is pretty obvious that he has not been doing evil in a long time.

I’m watching the §922(g) cases wind their way to the Supreme Court. I believe that the court is going to spank the government hard. In Heller, in the dicta, they indicated that §922(g) was presumed to be constitutional. They didn’t clarify that “presumed” means, “We didn’t look at it. That is a question for another day.”

There is no historical regulation nor tradition of stripping The People of their right to keep and bear arms because they are not virtuous people. That is what §922(g) does.

This is just an example of how there are intended consequences.

Of note, I’ve not seen a single story come across my feeds of a person being convicted of straw purchases that was a bad person.

Maybe that’s because they are either getting a sweetheart deal OR they are getting so stitched up that they didn’t stack the federal gun crime on top.

I love that I can trust the left to be an echo chamber. I caught an article in an online rag. They gave me the first two paragraphs, then said, “Pay for more.” I declined.

What I did do, was to use their title and ask Miss Google for links to the article. She obliged and gave me a list of about 20 different rags, all making the same complaint.

This is nothing new. Back in the days of BITNET I discovered an AP Wire feed. I could read the AP Wire just as if I were a real reporter.

One day, a story went by on the wire that I was interested in. That same story was in the University student paper. It was also covered in the big-city newspaper from a few counties away.

In reading the newspaper articles, it was obvious that they both got the base facts from the same source, the AP Wire. It was obvious that the by-line writers added no new facts to the story. The University paper gave a left leaning (Think 45degree lean to the left.), the city paper gave a more right leaning view. Call it about 5 degrees lean to the right. At the time, I would call the AP Wire story to be pretty neutral.

Here’s one of the headlines, “Winnie-the-Pooh book teaches Texas kids to ‘run, hide, fight’ in a shooting.” That is the most neutral headline I spotted.

They also had to tie it back to Uvalde. See, it is never the right time to discuss Second Amendment protected rights. It is always the anniversary of some event that makes it a third rail subject. It is always “too soon” after an event. The only thing you are allowed to do is listen to the preaching of elites blaming you for some assholes evil.

No, she is absolutely mistaken. The issue is that she will never be satisfied with what is done. Unless the answer is giving up all arms, she’s not going to be happy. If we were to give up all the guns, she would then be advocating removing knives from the subjects/slaves.

They hit all the major talking points, “Texas has some of the most lax gun laws”. Translation, you can exercise your right to keep and bear arms without a government approval slip. As a complete non sequiturs, they add As part of the Republican-led charge towards censorship in schools, meanwhile, Texas has banned more books that address LGTBQ+ issues, race, gender and abortion than any other state.

What the school boards and states allow into the schools has always been within their power. The issue the left has been that now the school boards and state are listening to the parents instead of the left.

Now, all of this noise is just that, noise. Run, hide, fight are the tactics advised by the FBI “should the unthinkable occur”. What all of this upset is really about is that somebody was giving power to the children.

“… the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Notice that it doesn’t say “guns”. It says “arms.” While the schools are supposed to be “gun free zones”, they aren’t.

I have had my children report that their teachers keep arms in their classrooms. The schools teach the teachers how to have arms in the classroom that don’t look like arms.

The schools talk about using fire extinguishers as weapons. One teacher kept a baseball bat next to her desk, not that she nor any of her students played baseball. Another had some big rocks on his desk.

All of these exist because a teacher thinks it is better to go hands on with a shooter and beat them to death with a club, rock, or fire equipment. They want their students to see the blood and gore of somebody having their head bashed in. All of that is so much better than two to center of mass and followup shots if the threat isn’t neutralized.

[xCiteBib]

Sorry for the lack of legal analysis these last few days. I have been fighting depression, but I think I’ve finally pulled myself out of it, for now.

Depression for me means it is hard to do anything that isn’t “fun”. Work slows down. Small things stop me from moving forward.

Yesterday included some loud noises, 18 of them to be more precise. The CETME had failure to feed on two rounds. The tip of the round started up the feed ramp and then jammed. The bolt carrier/bolt came over the top of the round and dinged the brass, locking it in place.

Clearing it was trivial, pull the charging handle back into the catch, flip the rifle upside down, the round falls out, slap the charging handle. BANG.

I find it interesting that a 300-500 word rant about idiots writing idiotic things gets more traction than long, detailed analysis of court filings.

Have a fantastic weekend, the comments are open.

The Constitution was written to set the rules of government in stone. It takes an entirely new tact on how to define a government. Instead of saying what the government is not allowed to do, it defines what the government is allowed to do.

Anything that the government hasn’t been given permission to do is reserved for The People or the States.

Many years ago, I owned an ISP. Back when dial up was king. When my partner and I were discussing the terms and conditions, he wanted to make this long list of things that were not allowed. I went the other direction.

“Be good. If you are not good, your account will be terminated. You will be charged for any mess that you leave us to clean up. Cleaning up after spam starts at $2000.”

There was something in there about us being the last judge of what is “good”.

We didn’t have problems with our clients. They got it.

If we had created a list of, then if somebody found Y that they did and we would not like it. They would simply say, You didn’t say we could not do Y, and we would be out of luck.

Our Constitution works the same way. The government was given a limited set of things they were allowed to do. In addition, the founders added a set of “Hell NO!” clauses because they knew the state couldn’t be trusted. That is the Bill of Rights.

Our Constitution is a remarkable document. It created an astonishing country, one I’m proud to be a citizen of.

Of course, when the left loses, they cry. They claim that it isn’t fair, that it isn’t right, that you cheated. If none of that works, they then go to that old standby, changing the rules.

Trump got three justices confirmed to the Supreme court. That was because the Senate stopped filibusters on Supreme Court appointments. That was possible because the Obama Senate stopped filibusters for appointments below the Supreme Court. They were warned, but they did it. A few years later it bit them, and we have Bruen.

Well, isn’t that a kicker. The Constitution seems to be getting in the way of their goals. Maybe because their goals suck.

If you look at California’s constitution, you will find a document with 514 amendments. That is quicksand compared to the granite under the Constitution of the United States.

Everything he is complaining about are the things that keep the wolves from voting to have lamb for dinner.

And “RACISM!” is there too.

When you look at election maps, and you see blue states, then look at the county maps and find that most blue states are mostly red by area, with a few very dense blue cities. Those blue cities use gerrymandering to maintain control of the state.

That’s because we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. The mob doesn’t rule.

There it is, they want the government to do more. He has no understanding of living without the heavy hand of the government controlling him. More important to him is that the government will control you and me.

The threat to democracy might seem real, that’s because what this entire article is about is the left not getting their way.

[xCiteBib]

Just a short one and a heads-up to the people of Illinois.

One of the things that is concerning about the ATF’s pistol brace + AR == SBR (Which the 5th Circuit has paused), is that if you have one, it is illegal without a tax stamp.

Put better, before you can acquire an SBR, you must get a tax stamp from the ATF. Since the ATF has decreed that a pistol brace on an AR-15 pistol makes it an SBR, you are now in possession of an SBR without a tax stamp.

Being in possession of an SBR without having that tax stamp is a felony. The ATF has kindly allowed you to document, in writing, that you are in possession of an SBR without having a tax stamp, and to request that they issue a tax stamp to you.

There is nothing that stops the ATF from turning around and prosecuting everybody that documented possession of an unregistered and untaxed SBR. I.e., turning you into a convicted felon.

Illinois has done similar with their semi-auto rifle ban. At the moment the governor signed the bill into law, the possession of one of those banned semi-auto rifles was a felony. The law says that if you register your semi-auto rifle, you can keep it and not be a felon.

Thus, you must document, in writing, that you are in possession of a banned semi-auto rifle to the state. The state can then decide to just register your semi-auto rifle, or they could decide to prosecute you for possessing an unregistered semi-auto rifle.

On the good news side of this, there is case law out of Washington State that addressed a similar issue. A bad guy was sent before the judge. The judge signed an order that made it illegal for him to possess firearms. The court then ordered him to turn over all the guns in his possession to the police.

He refused. Because the judge made it illegal for him to possess firearms, he would be incriminating himself if he were to turn those firearms over to the police.

Lots of gun nasty happening out there, but we keep making progress.

A few years ago, this song came across my play list.

I found myself listening to it multiple times, then listening to more of their songs.

Today I had to make a 2.5h trip to pick up my lady, I told Ms. Google to “Play Music” and one of their songs came through the rotation. Again, it was a good song, haunting.

As I was reading Justice Thomas’s wonderful Bruen opinion, I noticed the phrase “protected by the Second Amendment”. This is something he says throughout the opinion.

When I started looking for it, I found that when legal people were talking about the Second Amendment, they often (always?) said, “Protected by the Second Amendment” or “Second Amendment protected rights”. Over and over we see this language.

Our rights are endowed upon us by our creator. They are not granted to us by the State. If the state can grant us a right, the state can remove that right. Almost all arguments about constitutionality revolves around the absolute values of those rights.

The left argues that my right to free speech ends when they are offended. They call it “hate speech”. The sheep and leftists argue that my right to self-defense ends when I might harm somebody else. Listen to the comments on any shooting, and there will be calls for the punishment of the victim because they “didn’t have to kill.” or they “didn’t have to injure” the attacker.

Can you cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater? ABSOLUTELY! You can even do it if there is no fire. You have an absolute right to do so. On the other hand, if your actions cause harm to others. Real harm, not just emotional duress, then you might be liable for those damages.

I.e., if you cry “Gun!” in a crowded theater, and it causes a panic among the people trying to escape and some are injured or killed, you will be held responsible for those injuries and deaths.

Why “absolute”? Because rights have no value if they are not absolute. I absolutely have the right to keep and bear arms. I don’t have the right to murder people with arms. This is the balancing of rights. Their right to live vs. my right to keep and bear arms.

The law works at balancing the rights of the people. They fail most of the time. I have a right to my property. He has a right to life. He loses that right when he attacks me to take my property. (Notice that it isn’t just propriety here, there is violence directed at me).

Which takes us back to blowing Mrs. AWA’s mind this morning.

I said something like, “If the Second Amendment was repealed, it would not affect my rights.” Her response was, “But those are your Second Amendment rights, they would be gone.”

“What rights does the Second Amendment give us?”

“The right to keep and bear arms.”

“Nope, try again.”

“Ahhh, the right to have guns and use them”

“Still wrong.”

“It says it right there, the right to keep and bear arms”

“Yes, it does. But the Second Amendment gives us no rights.”

“Umm”

“Read what it says, “the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, this is protection for a preexisting right.”

“No. It says it right there.”

“Our rights come from our creator. We are endowed by them when we are created. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, or armed self-defense, which was endowed upon us by our creator.”

“Because it exists outside the government’s wishes and control, they cannot remove it. They can remove the protections, but not the right.”

“Mind. Blown.”

Mrs. AWA was so conditioned to hear “Second Amendment rights” that she lost sight, if she ever had it, of the simple fact that our rights exist outside the Constitution.

Now go forth and remember, they are Second Amendment protected rights, not given rights.

With a title of Over half of both Second Amendment supporters and Republicans favor universal background checks and gun licensing provisions[xCite item=”TEGEG49E” pos=0] I had to look deeper. The first thing to know is that this was conducted by a group associated with the U. Penn. It could be a left leaning entity, I’ve not done the research.

YouGov is a site where you can sign up to be paid to take surveys. This means that the bias for the survey is internet savvy. Not a bad bias.

So let’s look at the questions that were asked:

What we see isn’t horrible. Unfortunately, it lacks context.

Consider the question of background checks. The people giving this survey do not get to explain. When I hear “background checks for all firearm sales and transfers” it might mean universal background checks. Or it could mean “transfers at the time of sale” and I might even think of it as when buying from an FFL.

Given that the only reason that there is a background check is the GCA as amended, a background check is not constitutional.

Question B is at least attempting to be honest. They have explicitly stated that they are talking about the banning of semi-automatic firearms. They didn’t just say “Assault Weapons.”

C is just plain scary. I know that most of us want gun owners to train and learn what they are doing. To be good members of the community. Requiring tests and licenses for both firearm and person is bull shit.

Let’s take a look at two categories.

81% of males support universal background checks, 66% support test, license and registration, 55% support “assault weapon ban” and 48% support eliminating most gun laws.

The sample size is 1000. 468 of which were male. They fudge those numbers to make it 487 to match the actual percentage of men and women in the country. 394 of 487 support UBC. 321 of 487 support Test, License, Registration. 267 of 487 support “assault weapons ban”, and 234 of 487 support eliminating most gun laws.

Ok, the takeaway on this survey eludes me. It looks like there is good support for the Second Amendment, but there is also support for infringements. This feels like people avoiding absolutism. Hagar answers, “What part of shall not infringe, don’t you understand?”

I am also an absolutist, I just am not as vocal about it. I don’t know.

Regardless, my rights, and yours, do not come from surveys or opinions. Our rights are protected by the Bill of Rights. We are endowed with them by our creator.
[xCiteBib]

Reader Archer was letting his mind wonder:

— Archer.

The first step in analyzing a Second Amendment Challenge is to determine if the proposed conduct implicates the Second Amendment.

For conduct to be implicated, the object must be an arm and the conduct must be “keep and bear”.

If it is an arm and the conduct has anything to do with “keep and bear” then the conduct is presumptively protected under the Second Amendment.

We define the conduct, “I wish to keep and bear ammunition feed devices that have an arbitrary capacity.” The state wants to limit that capacity to ten or less.

Before Bruen the court would presume that this conduct was protected. They would then move to the second stage of the analysis: How much does this infringe the core right of armed self-defense?

Since you can use smaller magazines, different guns, and the state has presented evidence that self-defense events involving civilians rarely use more than three rounds, the infringement is trivial.

The state has also presented compelling “evidence” that big ass magazines allow for more harm when used in mass shooting events.

The court balances how much raping is being done to you verse how much the state really really wants to infringe. The courts almost always came down in favor of the State.

Today, we don’t get that presumption of protected conduct. Instead, we have to prove the conduct does implicate the Second Amendment.

When dealing with a gun ban, Heller controls. If it is a ban and the object is in “common use for lawful purposes, today”, then it is protected under the Second Amendment.

Therefore, the state wants to make the object “not an arm” or they wish to make it “dangerous and unusual”. The state is arguing from both sides in the LCM bans.

On the one hand, they argue it is not an arm. Since it is just a box and there are many differently shaped boxes of different sizes, you don’t need to have this particular size and shape. Further, they argue that a magazine is not an arm because it doesn’t really do anything. It is exactly like a cartridge box, or the box of ammo you buy from the LGS.

Since it is not an “arm” it is not protected under the Second Amendment.

If it is not an arm, it can be banned.

Because the state knows this is a weak argument, they move to the second step, “Even if it is an arm, which it isn’t, it isn’t in common use for self-defense”.

The state is acknowledging that magazines are in common use as defined by Heller and made concrete in Caetano. Heller said possessed. Caetano said that “hundreds of thousands in lawful possession” made it common.

The state knows that if a court rules, correctly, “dangerous and unusual,” then they lose. They can’t make an argument about “dangerous” that has any bearing because it is common. It doesn’t matter if it is the deadliest weapon ever invented by man, if it is in common use for lawful purposes, then it is protected under the Second Amendment.

But back to Archer’s idea. If you only fire 3 shots out of a LCM, then you didn’t really have an LCM because use is …

It doesn’t work.

Having gone through the magic above, the court decides to go rogue. They rule that the LCM is NOT a protected arm. Either they say it isn’t an arm or they say it isn’t in common use, it doesn’t matter, they have allowed the ban to go into effect.

At that point, the state makes it illegal to have an ammunition feed device which holds more than 10 rounds.

The law doesn’t say anything about use, it is mere possession.

The cops show up at your self-defense event. They slap you on the back and congratulate you on surviving the encounter. They take your fire arm, drop the mag and count the rounds in the mag.

You only fired 3 rounds, just like the statistics say you should, there are 5 rounds left in the magazine, this means you had less than 8 rounds in the magazine. Your golden!

Nope. The law isn’t like New York’s (old?) law. The LCM ban said you had to down load your magazines. You could still have your 15 round Glock mag, but you could only put 7 rounds in it, or some such nonsense. In this ban, it is a ban on the possession of LCMs.

So you tell the cop you only fired 3 rounds. He and the CSI folks see three holes in the perp and no others. The witnesses agree that it was only three rounds, and there are only three casings on the ground. Your golden!

Nope, the law does ban using more than 10 rounds, it bans possessing a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

To wrap this up, consider the cops searching your home with a warrant. They locate a tarball of heroin. It doesn’t matter if you used it, it doesn’t matter if it is pure or cut a thousand times. The mere possession of that tarball is the crime.

We had some excellent responses regarding car safes. I looked at an in console safe for my truck, the price has come way down, it is now on the “to buy” list.

I’m in the process of bringing a new client onboard. This makes me grateful to Miguel for getting me started on WordPress.

Ballistics software is currently on hold until I get client work caught up.

For our readers in Massachusetts, be aware that there is a horrible bill being pushed. I’ve not read the bill, but second hand descriptions from people I trust on the Interwebs suggest it will truly mess with everybody.

As predicted, the argument being pushed by the infringers is that “in common use” actually means “in common use for lawful purposes, like self-defense” which actually means “In common use for self-defense” which actually means “shots fired in a self-defense event”.

There are some cases pending transcription that I’m going to be evaluating over the following days.

Meanwhile, the comments are open, tell us what you are thinking, what you’d like to hear more about, what you’ve heard to much about.