A chink created in GCA68

Via Dave Hardy and WSJ. This is a really big deal:

This case presents an important issue of first impression in the federal courts: whether a prohibition on the possession of firearms by a person “who has been committed to a mental institution,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), violates the Second Amendment. Twenty-eight years ago, Clifford Charles Tyler was involuntarily committed for less than one month after allegedly undergoing an emotionally devastating divorce. Consequently, he can never possess a firearm. Tyler filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court dismissed Tyler’s suit for failure to state a claim. Because Tyler’s complaint validly states a violation of the Second Amendment, we reverse and remand.

This creates a significant chink in GCA68:

In this case of first impression, we consider not the what, where, when, or why of the Second Amendment’s limitations—but the who.6 Specifically, does the Second Amendment forbid Congress from prohibiting firearm possession by all individuals previously committed to a mental institution?

It also reviews the level of scrutiny being applied by other courts, expends several pages on it, and:

We conclude our explanation of choosing strict scrutiny with a reminder of intermediate scrutiny’s shaky foundation in Second Amendment law.

Strict scrutiny it is!

With strict scrutiny the law must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. The fact that someone was once confined to a mental institution does not mean they should necessarily be prohibited from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the rest of their life.

The same could easily be said of those who have committed non-violent felonies.

This ruling could help end the “sporting purpose” test and the Lautenberg Amendment.

Although this was in the sixth circuit and not the ninth which covers Washington State you can see how strict scrutiny would mean the end of the most onerous portions of I-594. How can a law preventing students in a classroom from passing a an unloaded firearm to another student be considered “narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest”? The only way that can be true is if the state interest is that there not be a right to keep and bear arms.

Why just the gun manufacturer?

I’ve been thinking about the lawsuit against Bushmaster because of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. And the more I think about it the more clear it becomes that our political opponents are not rational.

If the gun manufacturer is responsible then isn’t the magazine manufacturer just as, if not more, responsible? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the custom springs in the gun? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the propellant in the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the bullets? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the shell casing? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the cups, anvils, and explosive compounds in the primers? Why just the gun manufacturer?

And of course we could, and have, asked similar questions about the car the shooter drove to the school, and that leads to the gasoline, tires, oil, and roads he used to get there. And once we go there why not the shoes and clothes of the shooter? Or maybe he wore glasses and would have had trouble hitting his targets if it hadn’t been for the manufacturer of the corrective lenses and the optometrist who prescribed them.

We could carry this on to bizarrely extreme levels but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. So how does the anti-gun mind work such that they think the gun manufacture is responsible but none of the other manufactures of the components involved in the crime are? The point is that there is no clear threshold where it is easy to say the manufacturer of one component is responsible and the next is not.

The only thing I can think of is that they have some mind distorting hatred of GUNS!!! such that they cannot think rationally. They recognize the absurdity of blaming the car and corrective lens manufacturers but it just doesn’t register that since the ownership of a gun is constitutionally protected right that makes the liability of gun manufacturer even more absurd.

The inability to recognize the obvious in defiance of clear and presence evidence is evidence of a mental disorder. We see it with Peterson Syndrome and we see it here.

What’s going on here?

This is an elaboration of a comment I posted on Paul Barrett’s article about the inevitable failure of the lawsuit against Bushmaster in regards to the Sandy Hook tragedy. Barrett went to law school and has more than casual acquaintance with firearm law. I share his certainty it will fail.

I would have expected most reputable lawyers would have redirected the parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook to counseling rather than to pursue a hopeless lawsuit against the manufacture of a gun. I can understand the pain and even a need to “do something” but a lawyer who did any research at all, let alone gave it a few minutes of thought, should have concluded such a lawsuit is doomed to failure and deepening anguish for the parents.

I initially hypothesized the lawyer involved was someone desperate for money and at least momentary fame. But it is a law firm with a history that goes back 75+ years (via an article on CNN Money).

It’s possible they are short on money and with nine parents backing the lawsuit they may be able to bill (bilk?) them for perhaps a much as a million dollars. But will losing such a high profile case be to their benefit in the fame department? It’s been said many times that there is no such thing as bad publicity but that is usually in a much different context. When winning is what matters to your customers you don’t want to be well-known as a loser.

Lawyer David Hardy says, “I really can’t see it as filed in good faith.”

So I’m perplexed by this. Are the lawyers in this firm so ignorant of gun law (Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act), proximate causation precedent, and blinded by emotions that they think they have a chance “because GUN!!!”?

Remington clarification

Here are some of the headlines from the lamestreet media (phrase stolen from Alan Korwin):

Never trust the media to get things right. Especially in relation to firearms. Here is what Remington says, via a Tweet from greenmeanie:

HOUSTON, Dec. 6, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — On Dec. 5, 2014, papers were filed seeking approval of a proposed settlement of two economic class-action lawsuits of certain Remington bolt-action centerfire firearms that contain either a Walker trigger mechanism, or a trigger mechanism which utilizes a “trigger connector.”

The filings triggered multiple news reports that mistakenly conveyed the proposed agreement in significant fashions that require immediate clarification.

  • These settlements are not recalls.
  • These settlements are not any admission that the products are defective or unsafe.
  • These settlements are an opportunity for any concerned consumers who have the Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722 and 725 rifles with either a Walker trigger mechanism, or a trigger mechanism which utilizes a “trigger connector” to have Remington install a new trigger.
  • The benefits under the settlement, including the trigger replacement program, will not be in place until after court approval of the settlement and full notice will go out at that time.
  • This culminates from extensive mediator-supervised negotiations between lawyers for those concerned about the triggers and Remington, who while denying there is any cause for concern, always desires to ensure that its customers are satisfied with Remington products.

    A joint press release will be issued to better explain details of the proposed settlement.

    For further information, contact: Mark Lanier at wml@LanierLawFirm.com; 800-723-3216

    SOURCE Lanier Law Firm

    Black lives matter

    That is one of the communists’ protest lines. But of course they don’t mean it, and Glenn Beck proves it.

    They did a great job this morning.

    By their lack of response to, or even discussion of, the high crime and violence rates in some of our Democrat-controlled cities, Obama and Company, Van Jones and other mayors, and the left in general, reveal their true intentions. They don’t give a DAMN about black lives. In fact, they continue to push harder for more of the same garbage that helped to create the problem, and they will not stop. They can not stop, for to stop making things worse would require the abandonment of their entire narrative AND trillions of dollars in confiscation and re-distribution schemes.

    They’re trapped, in a sense. Everything they’ve striven for in the last 100+ years is going to come crashing in on them. Some of them actually want that. Not one of them understands the implications.

    Some people get it

    Meet Jonathan Gentry.

    This is what happened as I see it now. The Party of the KKK, the Party of Progressivism and Margaret Sanger, saw what was happening in the 1960s, and saw that they could not stop it. So they got out in front of it. It’s a standard tactic of the left; if you can’t stop it, at least take some credit for it, join in, and steer it your direction or otherwise work it to your advantage. Co-opt it.

    Now the Democrats have over 90% of Black Americans in their back pocket, keeping them angry, keeping them feeling sorry for themselves, keeping them hopeless, and thus keeping them voting Democrat. Meanwhile far more black babies are being aborted, as a percentage, than white babies, and the black family has been degraded such that Black mothers turn increasingly to the government as a surrogate father. Margaret Sanger, right there. She and Woodrow Wilson both loved the KKK.

    In summary; the Democrats, with help from Uncle Toms like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and promoter of violent revolution Lewis Farrakhan, are trying to turn black Americans into the objects of hate that they’ve always been for Progressives. And as a two-fer, they’re also trying to turn police into the “pigs” that the hippie/beatnik/communist/Progressives said they were back in the ’60s.

    Same thing has been happening with the feminist movement, by the way. It’s standard playbook. Co-opt a budding pro-liberty movement and turn it into a tool of agitation, of anti-liberty, anti-rights, anti-capitalist anti-human activism. It’s happening all around you.

    Meanwhile, the Republican Party is frozen stiff with fear, and anger at their own base. They didn’t get into politics to fight. They didn’t run for office to be harangued and maligned, yet that’s what they’re facing, and they’re making it worse the longer they sit on their hands and play their stupid games. They will never lead. Principled leadership has been bred out of the Party. Forget the parties. They’re done. Totaled. FUBAR. It’s up to the People.

    Edited to add; Here are a few famous and very loved Progressives, spilling the beans;

    Early 20th Century playwright and darling of the Progressives, George Bernard Shaw.

    Democrat President Woodrow Wilson and his pro KKK movie “Birth of a Nation”.

    Margaret Sanger, early 20th Century Progressive, revered to this day, on the “Negro Problem” and the purpose of advocating birth control. Sound familiar? It should. It was the inspiration for the German National Socialist’s Eugenics programs, and their Final Solution, which we now know as The Holocaust.

    And we’ll wrap it up with another all-time darling of the Progressives all my life and even to this day, Helen Thomas on what they view as the Jewish Problem.

    They must be laughing like hell at the fact that they actually managed to get the American black and Jewish votes wrapped up, and that no one called them out on it all this time.

    It’s time for us to leave now

    I was at Ry’s desk this afternoon when he got an message from Barron. He looked up at me and said, “It’s time for us to leave now.” “The verdict is out?”, I asked. “Yup”, was his reply and he offered to give me a ride because my bus wasn’t running for another hour or two. The protest was planned to start in Westlake Park which is directly across the street from where we work.

    As we drove past the end of Westlake Park Ry saw “a wall of police” at the park where the Ferguson protest was planned to start. Here is part of what was being planned by the “protestors” (via Gay_Cynic):

    The group’s Facebook page, which has a picture of an AK47 and the statement “the workers must be armed and organized” as its background, indicates this protest could take on a more aggressive tone.

    “‘Diversity of tactics’ and ‘be your own bodyguard,’ will be in FULL EFFECT,” the site reads. “Remember where you’re at, who is present, why they are present, and what time it is. This is NOT a game. This is NOT the usual ‘activism.'”

    As we drove home across the lake he talked about how many rounds of .223 ammo he had and, “Should we stop by Wade’s to get more?” I declined. I think a 1000 rounds is more than adequate. If an individual has more hostiles than what they can take care of with 1000 rounds someone on the other side is going to get lucky no matter how disparate your skills and equipment. What’s the point of giving them more ammo after they overrun your position?

    First 594 casualty

    I-594 has claimed its first casualty, even though it doesn’t go into effect until December. A museum in Lynden, WA, is returning some WW II rifles it was loaned, loans which would become problematic once the law is in effect. So, people going to the museum will not be able to see the parts of history they once could. I’m sure you feel much safer now.

    The push to marginalize guns and gun owners, to make them seem “other,” different, freakish, and strange continues.

    Another psychology example

    Yesterday I posted about how our political opponents use insults because they know insults are effective on themselves even when the insults are totally baseless. The Obama administration calling Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu “chickenshit” is an example that is making world news. Anonymous Conservative does the analysis:

    So why launch such an attack? If you are intimately familiar with the psychology, you’ll immediately see that this was an amygdala hijack directed at Netanyahu. Like many such attempts by narcissists, it was predicated on an understanding of human psychology that arose from the narcissist’s self examination of themselves, and thus it assumes the narcissist’s malady is ever-present in everyone.

    It make me think about how things must be unraveling inside the White House now that Dear Leader and his entire entourage are being criticized by leftists afraid of seeing the Obama administration’s failures reflect back badly upon the movement. Groups of narcissists can become amygdala echo chambers. One get’s hijacked and tries to relieve the strain by hijacking two others himself. Like nuclear fission, it can create a very unpleasant environment.

    Similar conclusions are probably valid when our anti-freedom opponents spew crude insults at us.

    Quote of the 2014 November election—Nick Hanauer

    We need more school shootings!!! Vote yes on Initiative 591.

    Nick Hanauer
    October 24, 2014
    Too Soon? Nick Hanauer Posts Sarcastically, ‘We Need More School Shootings!!!
    nick-hanauer_tweet
    [Via WAC.

    In addition to the moral bankruptcy, blood dancing, and exceedingly poor taste Nick Hanauer is a top funder raiser for I-594.

    I-594 is the anti-gun initiative in Washington State which would outlaw many common and innocent acts related to gun ownership. One such example is my loaning a gun to Barb for the weekend so she could take a class. If I-594 were law we would have had to seek out a FFL, pay a fee, and fill out a bunch of paperwork for when I “transferred” the gun to her, and then again when she “transferred” it back.

    I-591 is the pro-gun initiative which would limit Washington State to background checks to the same criteria as Federal background checks. And, assuming Hanauer is rational, then the only thing that could possibly be what he was referring to with I-591 being a issue in regards to school shootings is the following:

    A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

    It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.

    So, unless Hanauer thinks unlawful confiscation of guns is in the future, he has crap for brains in making the statement he did.

    My conclusions is that with this post he just confirms the relationship between those opposed to our fundamental rights, crap for brains, and inherent evil.—Joe]

    Quote of the day—Brandon Smith

    Acts of nature are not things that the common man can easily rebel against. People rebel against governments and corrupt despots all the time, but not the plague. If a viral pandemic strikes, nearly everything a government does after the fact, no matter how corrupt or destructive, can be rationalized as necessary for the greater good of the greater number. If anyone does rebel, they will be labeled as pure evil, for they are now disrupting the government’s ability to stop the pandemic from spreading, and thus, are partly responsible for the mass deaths that follow.

    During a viral outbreak, government becomes mother, father, nurse and protector. No matter how abusive they are, most people will still look to them for safety and guidance, primarily because they have no knowledge of disease. What they do not understand, they will fear, and fear always drives the ignorant into the arms of tyrants.

    Brandon Smith
    October 8, 2014
    An Ebola Outbreak Would Be Advantageous For Globalists
    [While the article has a fair amount of tin foil hat material in it I think the above is probably true.

    I was talking to son James the other evening about our government’s response to Ebola and he said the one good thing that is coming out is that it makes it more clear just how incompetent our government is. My counter to that was to many people that will just mean the government needs still more power. To far too many people the answer to every government failure is to give them more power or to put “the right people” in charge.

    And if we wanted to venture into the land of the tin foil hat we could hypothesize that Ebola is a crisis our government is not going to let go to waste.—Joe]

    University of Idaho advocating crimes against gun owners

    Via ammoland; University of Idaho “Executive Director for Public Safety and Security” (nod nod, wink wink), Matt Dorschel, has openly advocated abusing the 911 system to harass peaceable gun owners, potentially leading to another “SWATting” of an innocent person.

    Intentional misuse of the 911 system is one crime, and this jackass (and anyone who takes his advice) is also committing a federal crime, violating 18 USC 241 “Conspiracy Against Rights”.

    This warrants calls and letters to the Latah County Sheriff’s department, the U. of I. president, your ID State Representatives, and to the Governor’s office. The Moscow, ID Police Department contracts with the University of Idaho for campus security, to the tune of around a million dollars, or so I was told, which in this tiny town is a HUGE pile of cash. There’s a major conflict of interest there, and I wouldn’t bother with the city PD for that reason. We have a criminal in our midst, and we’re paying the son of a bitch.

    Someone inside the U. of I. I.T. system needs to get hold of Dorschel’s e-mails and other communications before his “hard drive fails”. Pronto!

    Hat Tip; Info Wars

    Keep and bear, not use?

    Interesting news story yesterday. The Seattle police had sued over the new “use of force” rules, saying in part that it violated their 2nd Amendment rights.

    The judge’s decision came down, and she (judge Marsha Pechman) dismissed the suit. According to the KOMO article :
    The judge also dismissed the officers’ constitutional arguments, saying that while the Second Amendment ensures the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t protect the right to use the weapons.

    Ummmm…. Excuse me? That’s like saying you have the right to free speech as long as you don’t say anything.

    Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

    Western civilization is at war with the IslamoNazi world.

    The problem is that Barack Obama, allegedly, the leader of the free world, does not recognize this simple truth. And that’s because he is a radical leftist who is incapable of recognizing, much less confronting, true evil.

    Imperial Japans was defeated by killing lots and lots of Japanese, and incinerating their cities.

    Same for the Nazis.

    And that’s how we are going to defeat IslamoNazism. By eradicating these human monsters and their sanctuaries. There is no talking to them. There is nothing to negotiate.

    They must be hunted down and killed.

    Robert J. Avrech
    September 3, 2014
    How to Defeat IslamoNazism in One Easy Lesson
    [Negotiating with them would be like negotiating with someone who wants to murder you. There is no compromise available.

    The sooner and more vigorously we get started on this unpleasant task the lower the death toll for everyone.—Joe]

    Traumatic hair cuts

    Barb was in downtown Seattle today and had an appointment to get her hair cut.

    Fortunately it was at a different location and time than this incident:

    SeattleFireHairSalon

    There were six people injured and the structural integrity of the building was compromised.

    Can you imagine laying back with someone shampooing your hair, you are all relaxed, and mellowed out then CRASH! The room explodes with broken glass, flying debris, a car zipping across the room, and the ceiling sags down toward you?

    On this day there were advantages to being bald.

    A bad free speech decision

    Another court case over at Volokh. Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2014). Some true believer bible thumpers went a-preaching at a huge Michigan Arab festival. They got balls, even if they might be shy a few common sense points.

    Any-hoo, they carried their signs, wore their shirts, did their preaching. The Muslims assembled took offense, and a lot of their kids (naturally) started getting actively hostile (always use kids, so if the cops crack heads it makes for good propaganda videos). The cops told the Bible Believers to shut up or leave. The Bible believers said they had first amendment rights. The cops said “leave or we’ll arrest you for disorderly.” The court agreed. Reading the decision excerpts, the court has an argument, but I think the defense / dissent (the Bible Believers) has a much stronger argument.

    Be a good case to appeal, especially if they win. If they don’t, then the incentive is for the hostile Muslims to get REALLY hostile to shut down opposition.

    Incentives are important.

    Decisions, decisions

    In Taylor v. City of Baton Rouge, the ban on guns in places that sell alcohol — including supermarkets and service stations, and their parking lots — was struck down on Second Amendment grounds.

    It’s cool to see the 2nd actually meaning something. Not sure if this is the best case to take the the SCOTUS, but it’s not a bad decision. A strange piece was that it was a default judgement, because the defendant didn’t answer the complaint properly.

    In other court news, in Sylvester v Harris California’s 10-day waiting period was struck down with respect to people who already own guns. Not strict scrutiny, not any clear other level of scrutiny, either. In any case, good news.

    As always, much more at the links.

     

    Random thought of the day

    Considering the downside of the The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and various religious based genocides it is extremely clear the risks associated with the First Amendment far outweigh the risks of the Second Amendment.

    If anyone wants repeal the Second Amendment because we are “more civilized than that” or some such utopian fantasy point them at the genocide and beheadings going in Iraq right now and suggest we need to repeal the First Amendment as well because freedom of religion obviously leads to barbarism.

    If they then wanted to repeal both the First and the Second Amendment and you gave them a swirly in response I would vote not guilty if it made it to trial and I was one of the jurors.

    I-594 questions

    Text of I-594 here.

    Video of testimony here.

    I’ve been going over it a bit. I’ve got a few questions that might be good to ask its supporters.

    A person wants to take an adult friend to do some casual training and firearms familiarization, planning on loaning her a variety of guns and ammo during the afternoon. They want to go to a nearby parcel of public land that has been legally and safely used for recreational shooting for decades. What specific section or subsection of 594 would exempt them from having to run a background check every time they handed a gun back and forth? Considering a vast amount of training is done this way, it seem important.

    A friend discovers her violent ex-husband just got released from jail, and she calls you at 10 PM Saturday night, fearing he might show up at her door any time. She’s a decent shooter, but due to finances she doesn’t already own a gun. What specific section or subsection of 594 would exempt you from having to run a background check to loan her a gun for a month until she can get the money together to buy one?

    Sec 3(4)(f) states that [requiring background checks] shall not apply to a list of specific activities, such as”: The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners;
    Why are no other family members included?

    (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
    Why is there no section listing such shooting ranges, or providing for how an existing range can become authorized?

    (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
    Why isn’t training for self defense, hunting, or recreation included?

    (iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms;
    Why only minor children, not other family members or adult children?

    or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
    Can you clarify exactly when it would, or would not, be legal to borrow a gun to hunt with?

    More generally, what section allows for temporary transfers for training for recreation, self defense, or hunting with privately owned guns without requiring a background check every time a gun changes hands?

    MAIG bribery

    To be more specific, Mayors Against Illegal Guns member Gordon Jenkins, a New York, Democratic Mayor, was arrested on bribery charges. Not just ““bribe receiving” but also “endangering the public health” and “intimidating a witness in connection with an incident in Fallsburg.”

    A fine, upstanding bunch of folks those gun controllers mayor Bloomberg hangs with are.