Eugene Volokh.

The case arose before Bruen, when New York required a showing of special need to get a license to carry a gun for self-defense. The petitioner had argued that she needed a gun because she and her husband would often carry substantial sums of cash for business, but the New York licensing authorities responded that she “failed to explain why her stated self-defense needs were not already adequately and independently addressed by her husband’s recent acquisition of an unrestricted concealed carry license.”

The New York intermediate appellate court rejected that logic (Matter of DiPerna-Gillen v. Ryba, decided Thursday in an opinion by Justice Stan Prizker, joined by Presiding Justice Elizabeth Garry and Justices Michael Lynch, Molly Reynolds Fitzgerald and Eddie McShan). The court’s main point was that, given the decision in Bruen, which came down while the appeal was pending, petitioner had a constitutionally protected right to carry, even without a showing of special need.

What a bunch of jerks.  They would force the husband to accompany the wife everywhere she went in order to obtain means of self defense, which might be a good idea at times, but comports more with Islamic culture than it does with Christianity.

Reddit/Firearms has an interesting discussion thread on shooting stances.  I think the prevailing wisdom is that you use what’s best for you, and I concur with that.  This string of comments was particularly interesting.

Quick breakdown that most don’t know… (isocoles ISN’T the only way to shoot… and currently it’s mostly done wrong)

This is going to be long and I apologize.There are 3 basic shooting stances -Weaver Chapman and isosceles. Most people think that the stance is based on foot placement,. It isn’t. It is actually based on upper body, and arm position.

Weaver was a big strong muscular guy, who bent his elbows pulled the gun in close and shot almost perpendicular to his target. Weaver IS categorized by bent elbows and pure muscle control. It requires a push/pull between the firing and support hand to create stability.

Chapman came along and modified the weaver stance by introducing a locked-out firing-hand elbow. Chapman is also called the “modified weaver” – typically standing about forty five degrees off of target. If the solid firing arm increases structural support and management, While the bent support arm adds stability. While there is still a push/ pull, the pull creates structure by locking the firing arm.

Traditional isosceles is just that – an isoscoles triangle. Both elbows locked out, your shoulder width acts as the base of the Triangle. As soon as you bend your elbows, you have taken the structure out of the isosceles stance, and you are essentially in a weaver stance (this is the current “isoscoles”- because traditional isoscoles is REALLY rough on the elbows). Isosceles came to prominence in the heyday of early shooting competitions, and more importantly with the advent of body armor. If you stand sideways in a traditional weaver or chapman stance the hole in your body armor is now facing toward your potential threat.

Sorry, long answer to a short question..There are benefits to all three stances, but no one is perfect. Each do certain things better than the others. Each have their positives and drawbacks. They all hold a place.

If i were to take a long pistol shot… it would be in a Chapman stance…

If i was clearing a house/ doorway/etc it would most likely be in weaver …

Wearing body armor… lean toward isoscoles.

[ … ]

I was recently informed that weaver is the way it is because he had an issue with his left shoulder and was doing his best with what he had. Otherwise he’d have shot isosceles.

[ … ]

factual. he had to change so he slapped his name on it to create branding and keep making money as an instructor.

Some call it Chapman, some call it Modified Weaver.  I prefer Modified Weaver.  It’s still the Weaver stance, just slightly altered.  Pew Pew Tactical has pictures of the stances.  I prefer the Isosceles stances, except for hard hitting cartridges like the .44 magnum, which are too much for the hands when the elbows aren’t helping to absorb recoil as a shock absorber.

I think the method taught throughout the military now is Isosceles due to the presentation of unprotected body (lacking armor) that any other stance causes.  Aggressive plates-forward, it’s called.

Under the Old Covenant, men were put to death if certain criteria were met. First, the sin had to rise to the standard of such a wicked act specified in the law of God. Secondly, two or more witnesses were needed to corroborate the accusation. Also, importantly, those worthy of death were not shipped off somewhere to be put to sleep with clinical precision some years or decades later, but the accusers would throw the stones of judgment in an hours-long gruesome death. It’s not the purpose of this writing, but as one might horridly imagine, the effect on crime was dramatic when family, friends, and neighbors were called upon to kill their own in such a brutally sobering affair.

“At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.” – Deuteronomy 17:6

John Baptist, as a witness of the truth, told of Christ’s coming. John said; there standeth one among you, whom ye know not. Jesus would, shortly after, begin His work revealing Himself. Jesus later would exclaim His witness is the most significant, not only for the miracles seen by hundreds of thousands but that He and the Father are witnesses together of the Son of God. This is a pronouncement of death upon the first-century keepers of the old law, and it extends into the New Covenant for us today.

“Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” – Hebrews 10:29

Jesus is the witness, and ultimately by His command, the soul that sins shall surely be put to death in hell. Jesus shed His own blood; in effect, though all men are guilty of breaking the law of God, making you therefore worthy of death, He took upon Himself this condemnation, as the true and faithful witness, that He would pay by blood for your sin. You are guilty of sin, your own conscience bearing witness against you, but the Saviour has cast the first stone upon His own head for you.

Are you counting the blood of the covenant that God has made as an unholy thing? Is God not holy? Christ was sanctified, set apart for this purpose, that your sin might be forgotten, the law satisfied being revealed to you today. Vengeance through God’s wrath belongs to He who rules heaven and earth; He has declared these things as the sole arbiter of your debt for sin and how it must be paid. Please don’t spitefully rebuke the Spirit of God that comes to you through grace and truth. Would you pay with eternal damnation when God has already offered to transfer that debt through His own Son, making it settled in full?

You, who have rejected the Christ of God and have decided to take the full force and brunt of the law of God, deny the wonderful gift of Jesus’ death for your sin. How much greater shall the wrath of God be for not only accepting your guilt and admitting hell is your destination but, in so doing, the depth of the offense toward God is immeasurable; it’s a personal affront. You heap wrath upon wrath on your head. Christ already died, and you declare His death was not worthy to reckon you among the living, forgiven at last. Not only has sin powerfully condemned you, but you indicate to God that He offered His own Son in vain. How much sorer punishment suppose ye is the price upon your eternal soul! You have valued God’s perfect sinless sacrificial forgiveness through the cross as naught! He is King of all; what have you done?

And that’s it, a concise post in which is the truth of the price on your head under the law, a price you could never pay. Jesus died the death of a sinless sacrifice for you and rose again so that you both might live. That’s how much He loves you. Christ is alive, so your life may be in Him, made like brothers before the Father.

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” – John 3:36

Believe the witness of Christ; accept it. The value of Christ, for He is all-sufficient, will by faith, change your worth from condemned in eternal death to not only forgiven, but because you have accepted by faith the price of Christ, God will receive you, counting your faith as righteousness for trusting so thoroughly, so completely in Him. God smiles upon all who say in their heart, I believe; thank you for your Son. Take the offer to walk away from death, not guilty; turn toward Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood. He paid the terrible price you never could; go, God, having recast wrath to peace during your few remaining days on earth and changing your final home to everlasting life with Him; do you believe?

Source.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A federal judge in East St. Louis issued an order Friday blocking enforcement of Illinois’ ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines until a lawsuit challenging the law is resolved.

Judge Stephen P. McGlynn, of the Southern District of Illinois, said the law known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act, or PICA, is likely to be found unconstitutional when the case goes to trial and the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases will suffer harms without a preliminary injunction to block its enforcement.

In a 29-page opinion, McGlynn acknowledged that the law was passed in the wake of a mass shooting at an Independence Day parade in Highland Park last year. But he said the “senseless crimes of a relative few” cannot be used to justify abridging the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

That’s the so-called “heckler’s veto” which we discussed just recently.  These legal doctrines do matter.

“More specifically, can PICA be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen?” McGlynn asked rhetorically in the opinion. “That is the issue before this Court. The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is ‘likely no.'”

McGlynn’s decision came less than a week after another federal judge, Lindsay Jenkins, of the Northern District of Illinois, reached an opposite conclusion and denied a motion to halt enforcement of the law. Plaintiffs in that case have indicated they intend to appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

This will likely go to the seventh circuit to rectify the split, and all bets are off there.  But the seventh circuit will block the law, in which case it’s either over or it may go to the supreme court, or they will uphold the law, in which case it will certainly go to the supreme court.

Judge Benitez hasn’t issued his ruling for California as of this writing, but there isn’t much doubt as to what he will do.  In the end, these will likely go to the supreme court, with the decision based on Heller, which stipulates that if a weapon is in common use for lawful purposes, it cannot be banned.  Heller doesn’t say if a weapon is in common use for self defense it cannot be banned.  It says “for lawful purposes.”  If there are thirty million ARs and AKs in America and they are all being used to adorn fire place mantles, that’s common use.

Here is Judge Stephen P. McGlynn’s ruling.  Here are some takeaways from the ruling.

The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment states, “[a] well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .” The prefatory clause “announces a purpose” for the operative clause but “does not limit [it].” Id. Meaning that there “must be a link between the state purpose and command” but that the scope of the operative clause remains unchanged by the prefatory language. See Id. As the Supreme Court noted, the operative clause of the Second Amendment creates an individual right. See Id. at 598. Thus, logic demands that there be a link between an individual right to keep and bear arms and the prefatory clause. The link is clear, “to prevent elimination of the militia.” Id. at 599. During the founding era, “[i]t was understood across the political spectrum that the right . . . might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.” Id. Therefore, although “most undoubtedly thought [the Second Amendment] even more important for self-defense and hunting” the additional purpose of securing the ability of the citizenry to oppose an oppressive military, should the need arise, cannot be overlooked. See Id.

Which I have always maintained.  The prefatory clause is sufficient but not necessary, or sufficient but not comprehensive.

The second section of the operative clause, “Keep and Bear Arms,” defines the substance of the right held by “the people.” Id. The Heller Court first turned to what constitutes “arms” and found that “arms” were understood, near the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, to mean any weapon or thing that could be used for either offense or defense. See Id. The Court specifically noted that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Id. at 582. Finally, the Court turned to the meaning of “keep” and “bear.” Id. at 582-92. These words are understood, in light of founding era history, to mean to “have” and to “carry” respectively. See Id. at 582-84. In sum, the operative clause of the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id. at 592.

Yes, although the supreme court dealt specifically with the “keeping” part of the RKBA in Heller, and the “bearing” part in Bruen.

… in the years following Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals analyzed the Second Amendment under a two-step test. See Id. at 2126. The first step included an analysis to determine if “the original scope of the right based on its historical meaning.” Id. The second step was a balancing test of either intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny depending on “[i]f a ‘core’ Second Amendment right is burdened.” See Id. (quoting Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 133 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc)).

The Bruen Court firmly rejected this two-step framework, concluding that “[d]espite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many.”

Bruen once and for all ended “interest balancing” for the RKBA.  It’s over and done with, and should more cases appear before the Supreme Court where interest balancing has occurred, they will be dealt a blow.

He goes on to deal with magazines, and many other important things.  I’m disappointed that Judge Benitez hasn’t issued his ruling, for I expect it to be a good one.  However, this is an excellent ruling for the RKBA.

Here is Mark Smith celebrating the victory.

Prior:

Sixth Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

Hundreds more in the Second Amendment Category

I won’t rehearse the history of Matt Hoover and CRS Firearms.  I think most of you know it anyway.  I also won’t rehearse my love for logic.  Most of you know that anyway.  Mark does a nice job of finding a very relevant legal precedent that should have been applied before the idiots at the DOJ and ATF ever brought him to trial.

The ATF was never able to demonstrate that what Matt helped to sell could ever work, or did ever work.  It was a collector’s item, and nothing more.  Anway, here is the relevant part from the court case.

Hypotheticals further illustrate the weakness of this methodology. A mouse is not an “elephant” solely because it has three characteristics that are common to known elephants: a tail, gray skin, and four legs. A child’s bike is not a “motorcycle” solely because it has three characteristics common to known motorcycles: two rubber tires, handlebars, and a leather seat. And a Bud Light is not “Single-Malt Scotch,” just because it is frequently  served in a glass container, contains alcohol, and is available for purchase at a tavern. To close with a firearm-related example: a hockey puck is not a “rubber bullet,” just because it has rounded sides, is made of vulcanized rubber, and is capable of causing injury when launched at high speeds. Learning that one object has three characteristics in common with some category may not be very helpful in determining whether the object in question belongs in that category.

I love the judge’s use of logic.  All law school graduates should be required to take multiple courses in Aristotelian (or classic) logic, and furthermore, logic should be an integral part of the BAR exam. I’ve read books on logic. Why shouldn’t a lawyer be required to do the same thing?

This is a lengthy history of Weaver’s growing acquaintance with shooting and the grip, stance, and style that he developed over the years. It’s part biographical and includes interesting input from Jeff Cooper. An engaging piece if you’re mature or patient enough to read beyond sound bytes and blurbs.

In the beginning was point shooting. For those precious few who prepared themselves to use a pistol as a serious defensive weapon, it was fired from the hip, without the benefit of sights. For others, including target shooters and law enforcement officers alike, the pistol was fired at arm’s length, onehanded, and, often, very slowly. Either way, the pistol was a one-handed gun, and the unfortunate thing was neither the close-quick-dirty approach nor formal pistolcraft bore any real resemblance to the skills needed to survive a real-life shooting. And then in 1959, along came an L.A. County Sheriff’s Deputy who held his pistol with both hands, hit what he aimed at, and did it faster than anyone else. His name was Jack Weaver, and as Jeff Cooper put it, “He showed us the way.”

Photo from the article: Weaver during his military days, with a single-action Colt Peacemaker. Note the high boots and the spurs — standard uniform for the mule pack to which he was assigned.

[…]

During this year of practice, however, he realized if he brought the pistol up a foot higher, and dropped his head just a bit, he could get a split-second look at his sights before pulling the trigger. Thus was born the Weaver Stance: two hands on the gun, with a flash sight picture and the offside foot placed a little forward. So in 1959, the trophy marked “Leatherslapping: Best Overall Gunfighter” went home with Jack H. Weaver’s name engraved on it. What made his win so sensational was no one had ever seen a pistol shot like Weaver was shooting his. “It looked kind of stupid,” he concedes. “Everybody was laughing at me, but it worked. I took the money.” Laugh though they might, he had found something that worked, and it worked consistently.

“They’re a stubborn bunch,” Jack says of the early combat shooters. “They kept laughing at me and thinking it was funny, and I thought, ‘that’s great!’” It got to the point the Weavers could get a hotel room and buy dinner, and count on paying for it with the winnings. After being beaten three years in a row, Jeff Cooper gave some careful thought to Weaver’s shooting position, finally announcing it was “Decisively superior” to anything else.

From his bully pulpit writing for Guns & Ammo, Cooper described the matches and the lessons learned, ultimately distilling them into the Modern Technique of the Pistol that formed the backbone of his teaching. In 1987, when Cooper was interviewed in Handgunner, he stated “Most of what I’ve done in my life has been eclectic — taking the best ideas of other people and putting them to use.” True to form, though he popularized it and taught it, he always gave Jack Weaver the credit for the stance. Indeed, it was Cooper who named it the “Weaver Stance.”

Honorable men and note, not an ounce of fat.

Also from the article: The early days: from left to right are Jack Weaver, Jeff Cooper, and Eldon Carl.

Here’s some of that old-fashioned American ‘never give up.’ When you know something is good keep at it; sooner or later, you’ll be recognized. Fortunately for Weaver and us, it wasn’t posthumously.

And so time passed. Jack got a letter from the FBI National academy in 1982, letting him know they had adopted the Weaver stance. The Weaver Stance became the Modified Weaver, and became a part of the Modern Technique of the Pistol, as set forth in the Gregory Morrison book of the same title. Cooper, of course, went on to found Gunsite Academy, where the Weaver Stance remains part of their core doctrine. There’s even a framed photo of Jack Weaver hanging on the wall in the main classroom, alongside portraits of Thell Reed, Elden Carl, Ray Chapman and Bruce Nelson, all shooting from the Weaver stance. Gunwriters still never tire of arguing Weaver vs. Isoceles, although the Weaver is now so universal it even popped up by name in the movie Meet the Fokkers. While the stance became a part of the culture, the man behind it was almost forgotten — almost.

The article continues at the link and here’s a good representative photo; one man is point shooting, but Weaver is using his sights and wins.

Again from the article: Weaver, winning the 1959 Leatherslap. That’s Jeff Cooper crouched down between the hay bales.

It’s a leap worth making; that concealed carriers are always examining surroundings and people, profiling for danger and a thing or person that seems out of place or acting strangely. It’s a natural fit that you would be on the lookout for anything, even a low-threat profile minor in distress. We suppose this can also apply to folks who witness for Jesus Christ in public places or other ministries for Christ as well.

You are not a cop (unless you are). All we’re doing is standard the security sweep and this extra thing; are there any young girls or even boys or adults who oughtn’t to be in that situation or environment? Nobody would blame you for not involving yourself with the police. Call the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888, gather as much information as you safely can, and let them handle it. Defense of others, and especially the least among us, is the law of God!

Sure, there are high-likelihood areas, and the readership here is generally less likely to be in those places than some demographics, but, leaving our Oligarch pedophile global “leaders” aside for the moment, there is a higher socioeconomic level associated with the prostitution of minors than you might imagine.

The article is not offensive; however tragic the topic may be, read it and watch the video.

I’ll put it somewhat crudely one time, No 13-year-old girl says, hey, maybe I’ll go turn some tricks. They are kidnapped and forced.

Concealed carriers who, as the late, great William Aprill said, possess a “fully-formed mental map of the expected terrain” and heightened sense of awareness can take actions that reduce the chances that the persons they love and care about ever become sex trafficking victims. In addition, we can become quicker to recognize the signs of  other person or persons that we do not know become sex trafficked and take actions that may result in getting law enforcement involved and ultimately rescuing the victim or victims  that end up with the victim receiving assistance from a crisis services program such as the one offered by  Cross Timbers Family Services where the goal is recovery and an opportunity to live a full life. The rest of this article is dedicated to providing readers with at least a partially-formed mental map to what sex trafficking is and is not based upon the above-described panel’s presentation on Human Trafficking.

For some reason, I’m unable to embed this time; here’s the video link URL.

https://youtu.be/rmuZuhEpPJY

Be the smartest guy in the room.  Always catch Mark’s videos.  They are legal classes in 12 – 15 minutes. And you don’t have to pay law school tuition for them.

This would be funny if it weren’t sad, and also a serious warning to free people. Forget for the moment that this resolution has no force of law, and this post isn’t about Red Flag laws necessarily.

On a nearly straight-line party vote, Knox County commissioners rejected a resolution supporting a “red flag” gun reform law backed by Gov. Bill Lee.

The governor has asked GOP lawmakers to pass the safety measure, which is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans and can help stop mass shootings like the one that killed three 9-year-olds and three adults in Nashville.

The Knox County resolution, which was drafted by local high school students on the new Junior Commission, urged lawmakers to pass a law that temporarily takes away guns from those who are deemed to be a threat. The resolution was sponsored by Courtney Durrett and Dasha Lundy, the commission’s two Democrats.

Larsen Jay was the only Republican to support it. Kyle Ward was absent.

Jay said the resolution was “a statement that at its core says we support our governor in his efforts to make this a better state.”

Rhonda Lee, explaining her vote against it, said gun rights are too important to weaken with any proposal to limit access to guns by mentally ill people.

West High School junior Caroline Scoonover told the commission during the meeting that the resolution she helped draft was intended to be a nonpartisan approach to stopping gun violence.

“This resolution is in no way, shape or form extreme,” she said. “We’re simply trying to protect ourselves with common sense solutions.”

Dain Shelton, a senior at Hardin Valley Academy, asked commissions to stand up for kids in the community who are terrified of school shootings.

“Technically we may be children, but I can assure you, we are not children,” Shelton said. “I wish we were. We’ve had our childhood stripped from us.”

I don’t want to say anything against this terribly ill-raised and misled student, but Dain Shelton’s parents should be ashamed of themselves. Hardin Valley Academy is populated by some of the most privileged people on earth. They, every parent, teacher, and student should be on their knees before the Christ of God, worshiping Him and giving Him all glory, praise, and honor for the absurd level of abundance of every resource of provision that even the people in the next county over could only dream of. This abundance includes layers of security and safety from parents, neighbors, and the government. Hardin Valley is one of the safest and most comfortable places on earth.

“Childhood stripped?” Seriously? Go work the lithium mines for your Teslas! I’m not classist; the people who have built the businesses and provided the jobs and homes are critical to this area, but listen to these children; they’ll turn on the productive in a heartbeat.

Other students echoed his statements, with Gabriela Sanchez Benitez adding, “This is not how it should be. We are not free. We are tied down by chains of fear.”

Irrational fear comes from a spirit of evil through the absence of Holy God (2 Timothy 1:7). “Tied down by chains of fear?” This rises to the level of AOC silliness.

What should bother the reader is the training these young people have received; that should make Americans fearful for the future. They have no concept of reality, truth, or the hard work it took to make Knox Country, and particularly Hardin Valley, prosperous and free. And despite all of Knox County’s problems and vanishing liberty every day, it’s still relatively free compared to much of America. Ungrateful to God, thankless to their forebears, whiny children of privilege! Pathetic.

They’re so ill-educated that the concept of those same laws being used against them is inconceivable to their feebly trained minds. Of course, purposefully retarding their ability in logic, reason, and critical thinking is all part of the communist program, even in East Tennessee.

Edit: look at this propaganda headline from Fox News. If you still watch and read them, you’re daft! “Tennessee governor defends Second Amendment in previewing special session on public safety, gun reform”

No Red Flag law! Tennessee already has a sufficient law for criminal threats.

Always remember that you have Trump to thank for the bump stock ban, and the corollary empowered ATF making law out of whole cloth.

Just today, the Sixth Circuit struck down the bump stock ban.  Two of the judges decided in favor of the plaintiffs because of the doctrine of lenity.  I disagree with that.  I think the law is very clear and adding a piece of plastic to a rifle doesn’t convert it to a machine gun under the statutory language.  The third judge said it better.

But I would go further. As explained by Judge Murphy in Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. Garland, the best reading of the statute is that Congress never gave the ATF “the power to expand the law banning machine guns through [the] legislative shortcut” of the ATF’s rule at issue in this appeal, see Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514 (Dec. 26, 2018) (the Rule). See 19 F.4th at 910 (Murphy, J., dissenting). Simply put, under the statute as it currently reads, the addition of a bump stock to a rifle clearly does not make it a machinegun.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Under this definition, a bump stock cannot be a machinegun part because a bump stock by itself cannot increase the rate of fire of a rifle, nor does it change the mechanics of a “single function of the trigger.”

Here is Mark Smith celebrating the victory.