Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Here is the ruling.

While most of us wouldn’t just willingly turn over firearms to the government if they came knocking, it’s important to understand the basis behind this righteous refusal.

Mark does a good job teaching you things that are good to know.

Can be found here.  He writes it along with many other professors of law.

I’ve skimmed through it but haven’t had time to study it in detail.

This is long and complicated “inside baseball” stuff, except with the court system.  Watch his two videos, or if you don’t have the time, watch only the last one.

BLUF: The Ninth Circuit intends to drop their pants and moon the supreme court.

As usual, Mark does a great job.

Here is the ruling.  There are still good men left in America.

There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme. Our federal government and most states impose no limits17 and in the states where limits are imposed, there is no consensus. Delaware landed on a 17-round magazine limit.18 Illinois and Vermont picked limits of 15 rounds for handguns and 10 rounds for a rifles.19 Colorado went with a 15-round limit for handguns and rifles, and a 28-inch tube limit for shotguns.20 New York tried its luck at a 7-round limit; that did not work out.21 New Jersey started with a 15-round limit and then reduced the limit to 10-rounds.22 The fact that there are so many different numerical limits demonstrates the arbitrary nature of magazine capacity limits.

In a stealth return to the interest balancing test rejected by Heller and Bruen, the State ostensibly justifies its magazine limits by deeming the smaller magazines “well-suited” for its citizens.23 Suitability, in turn, is based on concocted statistics about what a hypothetical average person needs to defend against an attacker or attackers in an average self-defense situation. Based on this hypothetical statistically average case scenario, the State permits its citizen to have a gun, but the State decides the number of rounds in the gun that it finds suitable.24

In so doing, the State denies a citizen the federal constitutional right to use common weapons of their own choosing for self-defense. There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers.25 Yet, under this statute, the State says “too bad.” It says, if you think you need more than 10 chances to defend yourself against criminal attackers, you must carry more magazines. Or carry more bullets to hand reload and fumble into your small magazine while the attackers take advantage of your pause. On the other hand, you can become a criminal, too. So, the previously law-abiding California citizen who buys and keeps at her bedside a nationally popular Glock 17 (with its standard 17-round magazine) becomes the criminal, because the State dictates that a gun with a 17-round magazine is not well-suited for home defense.

Do you feel the sarcasm dripping from his pen?

Because Stephen Stamboulieh is a stud, he got the restraining order on behalf of the GOA against the governor and state police of NM in her gun ban edict.

Here it is (121113193136).

The only thing I’d say is that the case seems simple enough to me that the judge should have vacated the edict altogether and rendered it null and void, and enjoined them from enforcing it – ever.

He did indicate that the plaintiffs were likely to win the case on the merits, but there are unfortunate phrases in the ruling, like this.

Although the State of New Mexico raises important safety concerns, at this stage it fails to demonstrate that the public safety concerns overcome the public’s interest in preventing constitutional violations.  At a fuller hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, the State of New Mexico may present more detailed information about how public safety strongly weighs against issuing a preliminary injunction because of the dangers and safety concerns associated with firearms. However, given Bruen’s clarity that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2122, the Court concludes that issuing a TRO to prevent the violation of a constitutional right would be in the public interest.

The judge is still, even now after Bruen told him not to do it, trying to play a public interest balancing act.  As Stephen told him in his brief, that balancing judgment was made when the second amendment was ratified.  It’s unconstitutional to try to do it again.

However, this is a win, and I’ll take a win.  We’ll have to leave the rest to Stephen.  And God.  Because Stephen is doing God’s work.

Source.

“The order is being enforced, and citations will be forthcoming from the State Police,” said Caroline Sweeny, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham’s office. ”To ensure officer safety, we will not be providing additional details at this time.”

[ … ]

On Friday, after announcing the order, Lujan Grisham told reporters “we’re likely dealing with misdemeanors,” but she was not specific.

It’s also unclear if any penalties people could face for violating the order would stand up against a challenge in court. Several attorneys showed up Sunday offering to represent anyone who receives a citation under the public health order, which is already facing several legal challenges.

Potential misdemeanors were not a concern for some in attendance, most were focused on what they view as a violation of the Second Amendment.

I don’t know, but I still think this isn’t as simple as everyone is making it out to be.  First of all, I’m sure the controllers have an overarching plan – or think they do.  Maybe they want images of violators.  But that makes little sense to me.  So they get images of guys and girls with guns.  So what?  There are another hundred thousand in NM (and another several million across the nation) just like them for every one image they capture.

Second, they are obviously running some sort of misdirect – after all, who really believes Ted Lieu really cares about constitutional violations (I’m not going to link or embed his idiotic tweet because I don’t believe him and he’s a liar)?  I’m sure this is still a probing attack, but I’m also certain that they didn’t quite expect what’s happened or what’s coming.  This will be heard in federal court, and there will also be state lawsuits over this.  So the state police issue citations.  So what?  After refusal to pay, the district attorney has put in writing that he won’t enforce it and has gone on record saying that under Bruen this is unconstitutional.  Does the governor really want to go to federal or state court with that testimony on record?

I'm not commenting on the veracity of this, but, in this day and age, be wary of facial recognition, even on the private level. Wear a hat, sunglasses, and even a mask. Don't post photos of yourself or allow photos of yourself to be posted online. Don't do things in public that… https://t.co/wk3VgwQt6A

— Don Shift (buy my books) (@DonShift3) September 11, 2023

There are two ways to look at this.  The first is that it’s a chance to get into trouble.  Hide yourself.  Wear sunglasses.  Wear a hat.  Dress in an unfamiliar way.  Borrow a neighbor’s car to get there.  Leave your cell phone at home.

The second is even more interesting to me.  Let it all happen.  Identify yourself.  Set up a lawsuit that will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Only they can decide.  Or maybe they already did.

Via WiscoDave.