Dean Weingarten lifts some of the prose out of the most recent decision by Roger T. Benitez.  The case involves “A number of California residents, firearm businesses, special interest groups, foundations, and a political action committee [who] have organized to sue California AG Xavier Becerra et al, to challenge the constitutionality of California’s complex net of regulations for the ownership and use of various firearms the state deems to be “assault weapons.”

I would have suspected that if this case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court they would have found that there was no “standing” to sue if there was no arrest or loss of compensation.  In other words, I’m accustomed to seeing courts ignore such cases because of “standing.”

From the order:

It has long been the case that a plaintiff possesses Article III standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a state statute which regulates the exercise of a federal constitutional right and threatens a criminal penalty. “When the plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he ‘should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.’” Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat. Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) (quoting Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973)). “[I]t is not necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974). “In Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn. Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (1988), we held that booksellers could seek preenforcement review of a law making it a crime to ‘knowingly display for commercial purpose’ material that is ‘harmful to juveniles’ as defined by the statute.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 160 (2014). Of course, “[s]uch challenges can proceed only when the plaintiff ‘faces a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the law’s operation or enforcement.’” Skyline Wesleyan Church v. California Dep’t of Managed Health Care, 968 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). But the simple continued existence of the criminal penalty provision together with an absence of a defendant’s disavowal of prosecution satisfies the requirement of a credible threat of prosecution. Susan B. Anthony List, 573 U.S. at 164 (threat of future enforcement of the false statement statute is substantial with history of past enforcement).

The bar for standing is not particularly high. For example, organizations that have been “perceptibly impaired” by a government rule “in their ability to perform the services they were formed to provide” is sufficient for organizational standing. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 950 F.3d 1242, 1266–67 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The Organizations are not required to demonstrate some threshold magnitude of their injuries; one less client that they may have had but-for the Rule’s issuance is enough. In other words, plaintiffs who suffer concrete, redressable harms that amount to pennies are still entitled to relief.”). An organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members when “the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose.” Sierra Club v. Trump, 963 F.3d 874, 883 (9th Cir. 2020) (also noting individual’s standing to challenge border wall construction based on: “concern[] that the wall ‘would disrupt the desert views and inhibit him from fully appreciating the area,’ and that the additional presence of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents ‘would further diminish his enjoyment of these areas’ and ‘deter him from further exploring certain areas’ [while] worrie[d] that ‘construction and maintenance of the border wall will limit or entirely cut off his access to fishing spots’ along the border, where he has fished for more than 50 years.”).

Good.  This is a decent decision by a man with honor.  Maybe this case will appear before the Ninth Circuit and force them to make a decision, and then perhaps it will get a hearing before the Supreme Court.

The Spectator.

In recent years this city in the Pacific Northwest has become famous for a variety of reasons — none of them good. As one long-term resident said to me last week: ‘This used to be a very civil town.’ Not any more.

Of course, like every city in the west, the madnesses that already existed here have been exacerbated by the coronavirus and the ensuing decision to lock down the population and shutter the economy. As in cities across the UK, the businesses here are mainly closed, many for good. Some were able to get through one lockdown but very few can get through multiple lockdowns or the depression to come.

As a result, downtown Portland is a desolate, dangerous place, populated by homeless people who flooded into the area over recent decades, incentivised by left-wing administrations that allowed them to pitch their tents wherever they liked. In the main squares, unattended tables of food and drink are set out for them to pick at.

But it isn’t just the virus or the reaction of the authorities that led to this wasteland. The giveaway is the status of the few shops that are still open. Almost all have hardboard affixed to their remaining windows. Some have bullet-holes in them, not fired by the police. The businesses that do still operate do so as in a city under siege.

Portland has been the epicentre of a confusion that has afflicted a smaller number of activists in our own country. That is the taught perception that they live in a patriarchal, unequal, cis-heteronormative, irredeemably racist society. In time this defamation sank in and caused a reaction. For years, the city has seen regular rioting by the far-left group ‘Antifa’. In the name of pursuing non-existent fascists these activists laid waste to their city, dragged passing motorists from their cars, hospitalised journalists whose reporting was disobliging and otherwise turned the city into a first-world slum.

After the killing of George Floyd at the end of May, protests in Portland were among the most violent in the US. They are still going on. The left-wing mayor forbade the police from working with the federal authorities to act meaningfully against the rioters and at the forthcoming mayoral election the only candidate running against him is an open supporter of Antifa.

Recent successful operations carried out by this candidate’s favoured militia include the pulling down of almost every statue and public monument in the city. The weekend before last it was Abraham Lincoln who fell. On another occasion — in a quasi-pagan ceremony — rioters repeatedly set a monument of an elk on fire and then pulled it down. A tour of the sights in Portland now comprises a huge variety of empty plinths. Few tourists will be returning for that. The remaining state and federal buildings are boarded up, graffitied over and abandoned.

Over the summer the President sent in federal guards, against the wishes of the local authorities. Today the remaining federal agents are among the few targets Antifa have left. I joined Antifa-BLM activists for a couple of nights this week.

First there was a ‘Fuck Gentrification’ march (my first). With no policemen in sight, the activists used their own police force, including outriders on motorcycles, to block off roads and then parade through the streets screaming through megaphones at customers in the remaining bars and at the residents of an area which they claimed had once been lived in by black and indigenous families. The people who lived in many of these houses came out and put their fists in the air or waved in solidarity. Most had BLM — or ‘Don’t hurt me’ — posters in their windows. All were accused of living on ‘stolen land’ by the mostly white marchers, whose other chants included ‘Wake up, motherfucker, wake up’.

This is a pregnant bit of prose and deserving of more time than I can give it, but the thing that particularly struck me was bold (by me).

People may think that alignment with Antifa/BLM will keep them out of trouble (the alligator ate me last), but they don’t care.

Antifa/BLM wants them in poverty first, and then dead.

And you too.

Ammoland.

Moran ordered “fuel filters” from an advertisement on Instagram. When the package arrived from China, it had two items that looked more like silencers to him than fuel filters.

Moran went to a friend at NAPA Auto Parts who explained to him that these items were not actually fuel filters, that he knew others who had mistakenly ordered them, and that he should get rid of them.

The next day, Moran voluntarily surrendered these “fuel filters” to the Carlstadt Police Department.

New Jersey law,NJS 2C:39-12, specifically encourages the voluntary surrender of silencers and other regulated items to the police and grants immunity for such voluntary surrender.

While voluntarily surrendering these items, Moran told the Carlstadt detective that he had made two purchases of which he received only one and that he was canceling the second order.

Moran notified the China-based Instagram vendor, PayPal, and his bank to cancel the second order and payment. He also alerted the US Post Office that he refuses delivery of any package from this seller.

He did all the upstanding things, didn’t he?

To his surprise, approximately 10 days later, a second package still arrived at his home. He immediately put the box in his car and drove directly to the police station to voluntarily surrender it, as he had done with the first purchase.

After parking at the borough hall, he proceeded to walk up to the police department located there. Before entering the building, however, a cadre of Federal and State Government agents stopped and arrested him.

Mr. Moran is represented by the law firm of Evan F. Nappen Attorney at Law PC.

Attorney Evan Nappen stated, “In other words, in response to Moran’s initiating contact with law enforcement, voluntarily surrendering a package of questionable ‘fuel filters’ that he received, informing the authorities about a second potential package, and doing everything that he could to stop its delivery – Government surveilled him, followed him, and set up a trap to arrest him.”

After the arrest, Bergen County Prosecutor Mark Musella quickly issued a news release painting Moran as an “international arms-trafficker” who “smuggled” contraband into the country.

Meanwhile, Antifa/BLM continues to engage unmolested in murder, threats, arson, destruction of public and private property, illegal arms trafficking, and insurrection.

Shooting Illustrated.

CCI’s Clean-22 coating technology has been around for awhile now, helping rimfire shooters getting the most range and power from the .22 WMR. New for 2020, CCI has introduced the Maxi-Mag Clean-22 segmented hollow point (SHP), which features a polymer bullet coating that reduces copper and lead fouling in the barrel with leaving excess residue.

““New Maxi-Mag Clean-22 SHP is the industry’s only segmenting hollow-point bullet in .22 WMR,” according to CCI Product Line Manager Dan Compton. “Personally, I like its Olive Drab Green color on the bullet which gives it a hunting look, and I can’t wait to hear stories and see photos from our happy customers who use this new magnum rimfire round on prairie dog towns, in the squirrel woods and for their fur trapping efforts.”

The SHP bullet splits into three equal sizes upon impact, greatly expanding wound channels on small game, including varmints. The 46-grain bullet features a polymer design and allows for separation at lower velocities and longer distances than other conventional copper jacket designs.

It’d be interesting to see ballistic gel tests with this round.

Via Ken.

BREAKING: @RudyGiuliani announces he has turned over Hunter Biden hard drive to Delaware State Police due to pictures of underage girls and inappropriate text messages

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 20, 2020

More.

This would appear to square with reports that one of the FBI agents who signed the subpoena to take control of the hard drive is Special Agent Joshua Wilson, who investigates crimes committed against children.

So he’s a pedophile.  Is anyone really surprised?  Is Joe Biden surprised?

The reigning king of bear attack data (firearms, calibers, effectiveness) has a surprising one for you.  He has cataloged 20 instances of successful self defense with .22 rimfire.

For me the takeaway is to shoot what you’ve got and pray for the best, but I sure would want a large bore handgun.

It seems to me if you make your way into the bush with a .22LR, you failed before you ever left home.

Ammoland.

In 2019, according to multiple sources including those at the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATF), the former Department Assistant Director of Enforcement Programs and Services, Curtis W Gilbert, discussed pistol braces at multiple meetings with other ATF employees.

In his opinion, pistol braces, specifically the SB Tactical SBA4, are stocks. He hinted that the ATF would take regulatory action against the devices designed to help disabled people use firearms.

The current Department Assistant Director of Enforcement Programs and Services Andrew Graham has also expressed hostility to pistol braces in internal ATF meetings with staff members. The same sources believe that the ATF didn’t move on the pistol braces earlier because the agency didn’t think they had the political capital to regulate braces.

It’s sad that Americans have put up with such tyranny.  It’s even more sad that some of the tyrants are in the House and Senate, and that all of this infringement couldn’t have been dealt with sooner.

Ammoland.

Internal ATF documents obtained by Gun Owners of America show that the agency, once again, is asserting powers not given it by Congress.

This time, the agency appears to be gearing up to force out-of-business federal firearms licensees (“FFL”) to turn over their remaining firearms in inventory to other dealers — even though federal law explicitly allows former dealers to transfer these firearms to their own personal collection.  ATF has even threatened prosecution of former dealers who do not comply with ATF’s unlawful requirement.

For years, ATF operated within the rules Congress established.  When an FFL ceases business operations, any firearms remaining in inventory may be transferred either to another dealer or to the licensee’s own personal collection.  Either way, the disposition for each and every firearm must be recorded in the dealer’s “acquisition and disposition” (A&D) book.  The A&D book, along with other records, must then be transferred either to the ATF out-of-business center, or to a successor licensee who takes over the business.

This is the system set up by federal law.  For example, 18 U.S.C. Section 923(c) makes clear that it is perfectly acceptable for a dealer to maintain a “personal collection” of firearms, and even to transfer firearms from business inventory to that collection.  And, of course, once a dealer goes out of business, he is no longer a “licensee” under the Gun Control Act, and has no record-keeping duties under the statute.  He is entirely a private party, and any firearms that have previously become part of his personal collection are treated no differently than for any other gun owner.

Only the real tyrants get to make the rules.  The petty tyrants are the House and Senate.  The real controllers are the ones who can make up laws out of whole cloth and do anything they want to do about “violators.”