Quote of the day—Justice Samuel Alito

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see
what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of
the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8
(opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent
think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have
occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent
think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting
be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun
outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the
fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list
took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this
case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.


What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns
to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think
that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be
stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot
lawfully take them outside?


The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why
these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun
in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how
many are prevented by laws like New York’s?


The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents
killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to
do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to
possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the
categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and
federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun
by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C.
§§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone
under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1


The dissent cites the large number of guns in private
hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what
this statistic has to do with the question whether a person
who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

Justice Samuel Alito
June 23, 2022
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
[I suspect that to Alito these are actually rhetorical questions. By now it should be increasingly clear anti-gun people are not rational. To many of them it is perfectly obvious that if someone, not an authorized government employee, possesses a gun they are “a bad guy”. That is their default way to determine good from evil. If someone has a gun they are evil and/or have intent to do evil, and should be taken into custody to prevent the crimes which they know will happen. That we want private citizens to be able possess guns is blindingly obvious proof that we want to create more criminals and crime. It’s “common sense” to them. No further discussion is needed.

And it happens at the Supreme Court of United States of America.

That is how messed up and prevalent their thinking is. It is how they justify summary execution and genocide for gun owners.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

World class trolling

I suspect Justice Thomas has had this teed up for many years and got a great deal of pleasure whacking the opposition in the face with it today:

Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms—a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America. After the Civil War, of course, the exercise of this fundamental right by freed slaves was systematically thwarted. This Court has already recounted some of the Southern abuses violating blacks’ right to keep and bear arms. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 771 (noting the “systematic efforts”

Thomas goes on at length with sections such as:

The reports described how blacks used publicly carried weapons to defend themselves and their communities. For example, the Bureau reported that a teacher from a Freedmen’s school in Maryland had written to say that, because of attacks on the school, “[b]oth the mayor and sheriff have warned the colored people to go armed to school, (which they do,)” and that the “[t]he superintendent of schools came down and brought [the teacher] a revolver” for his protection. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 658 (1866); see also H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 68, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., 91 (1867) (noting how, during the New Orleans riots, blacks under attack “defended themselves . . . with such pistols as they had”).:

Via LongWay001.

In other news, Mike B. and I exchanged some text messages this afternoon:

Mike: We need to start renaming streets, “Clarence Thomas Blvd.”.
QOTD candidate by Mike’s wife.

Joe: Smile
Hmmmmm… How about renaming NYC “Clarence Thomas City”?

Mike: Honoring the black man

Leftists opposed to freedom… again

Constitutional law is something to be disposed of and/or ignored ::

It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States. The first step is for a state the “court” has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling. Great. You’re a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?

Olbermann probably doesn’t know this, leftists seem to be ignorant or in denial of history, but other people once had a similar attitude about SCOTUS. The National Guard convinced them to change their behavior. There is another parallel which should also be pointed out to Olbermann. And that is, in that previous encounter it was also Democrats obstructing freedom.

Slippery slope

From What the Supreme Court’s Gun Ruling Means For Gun Control

So the future will depend, at least in part, on what state lawmakers try to do. Lawmakers in a state like New York or California could test the limits of the Supreme Court’s ruling by designating the subway, Broadway theaters or grocery stores as “sensitive places” where heightened restrictions can be applied. The risk for them, of course, is that the next Supreme Court ruling could expand gun rights even further.

It could be that the slippery slope is leaning in the correct direction.

I won’t be satisfied until the opposition knows the slightest misstep will be like a greased tin floor at a steep angle with a Federal prison cell at the bottom.

Quote of the day—Sebastian

This just takes. The concessions are only things law and order GOP swamp creatures care about.

This bill is garbage and should be opposed, and any Republican who votes for this needs to be tossed out on their asses in a primary if they aren’t retiring.

Sebastian
June 22, 2022
Breaking Silence Over Gun Control
[The best thing I can say about it is that it isn’t as bad as I expected it would be.

All is not lost yet. It appears Senator Dianne Feinstein is improving the odds it will fail:

I just filed an amendment to the Senate’s bipartisan gun bill that would raise the age to purchase an assault weapon to 21.

I still think everyone that votes for it or contributes to the enforcement of it should be prosecuted.—Joe]

There’s probably some truth to this

Via Ivermectin and Artemisinin @triplecrown777:

One thing people need to understand about extremely kind, nice, and loving people, is that their other side is jus as extreme. It’s the hell they survive that makes them gentle. Don’t mistake their self-control for weakness. The beast in them is sleeping, not dead.

A couple decades ago a coworker from India told me it was well known and taught in the psych classes in his country the person most likely to kill you wasn’t the person easy to anger. Those types calmed down just as quickly and easily as they angered. The person that was always calm, gentle, and soft spoken was very difficult to make angry. But when they did get angry they would kill you even if it was days or weeks later.

My hypothesis for this is that the person who is frequently angry has learned to manage that state of mind from 10s of thousands of incidents growing up. One the other hand, the cool, quiet, gentle type, has hold experiences with extreme feelings of anger which number in the dozens and they are more likely to be overwhelmed by the emotions.

There may be a lesson to be learned here about rioters, emotionally driven anti-gun people and their long suffering victims.

Red flagging the red flags

For something in a Boston newspaper this is amazingly good:

“Even the best available risk factors can identify only a subpopulation in which the risk of committing a mass shooting is on the order of one in a million.” Are we prepared to curtail the freedom of 999,999 Americans who pose no threat in order to keep the one in a million away from guns?

The sweeping use of red-flag laws to withhold Second Amendment rights from anyone with the social characteristics common to mass shooters is akin to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s order to round up hundreds of thousands of Americans of Japanese descent in order to prevent espionage or sabotage during the war against Japan. Some terrible outcomes might indeed be prevented, but at the price of lost liberties on a wide scale.

Justified

I don’t see it as a cause for celebration. I view it as the best of the bad alternatives:

As more people get guns and carry permits, Philly sees a sharp rise in homicides ruled justified

Some see increased gun ownership and use in self-defense as bad:

“Guns are becoming too prevalent, whether they’re in the hands of licensed or unlicensed people,” Johnson said. “We’re becoming the Wild, Wild West, and soon everyone is going to have a gun, killing people ― justified or not.”

I think the majority of people realize gun people have been right all these years and are going to give our way a chance.

Quote of the day—Nicholas Roske needs to learn to apply himself @DanLoney36

OK…silent generation? Whatever the hell you were. Thanks for all the impotent killers you trained

Nicholas Roske needs to learn to apply himself @DanLoney36
Tweeted on June 14, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

The quoted tweet was in response to someone saying they were a CCW instructor.

This claim takes some contemplation to even begin to respond to it:

It is not possible to manufacture, distribute or sell an AR-15 safely. We have decades of evidence. Its only use is to kill civilians and children. Its very existence creates a market for murder.

He apparently lives in a alternate universe from the one I am familiar with. In my universe tens of millions of AR-15s are safely in the hands of millions of citizens and are used to fire hundreds of millions of rounds each year. Yet blunt objects are used more frequently to murder people than are killed using an AR-15. And sharp objects such as knives are used far more often than blunt objects. Either all those 100s of millions of rounds malfunctioned or they are being used for something other than to “kill civilians and children”. Hence this guy is delusional and/or an evil liar.

This law expert is also well know for:

Saying an AR-15 is protected by #2A is like saying child pornography is protected by #1A

This one tells you all you need to know about him:

Ashli Babbitt? Love her. I love her so much, I think next time they should make a few dozen just like her

This removes all doubt:

Why are we pretending these #2A scum are human beings?

And this was directly to me before I was blocked:

It’s just a never-ending abyss of moral and intellectual failure with, for want of a better term, “people” like you I don’t care if the vast majority of mass shooters are Whigs. As long as these weapons are legal, children will die. It can’t be any more clear.

This is what he thinks of people who don’t agree with him. He dehumanize them and wants them dead. For more examples see here.

It was an interesting exchange. Links to SCOTUS decisions, criminology facts, and pointing out the errors of his ways were responded to with insults and additional bad legal takes. I had to wonder if he is paid to be a troll. He was clearly way in over his head and just kept going long after I left to go to the range.—Joe]

Self incrimination

In addition to thinking law enforcement should be going to jail instead of Ms. Taylor I find this interesting because it seems to me there is a 5th Amendment issue here as well a 2nd Amendment issue:

Texas woman arrested in Albany for declaring a firearm to a Delta Airlines representative

Albany County Sheriff has reported the arrest of a Texas woman for Criminal Possession of a Firearm.

On Wednesday, June 15th, at approximately 11:45 AM, Deputies responded to the Delta Airlines ticket counter for a passenger declaring a firearm to a Delta Airlines representative.

Upon investigation, Deputies discovered that Natasia R. Taylor was in possession of a Walther P22, .22 caliber handgun.

Taylor does not possess a New York State Pistol Permit.

Taylor was charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, a Class A Misdemeanor.

Isn’t it a self incrimination issue that you are required to declare a firearm under these conditions?

Quote of the day—Miguel Gonzalez

This is an unfortunate example of a religious leader interjecting himself into a political discussion. I understand that is something tempting to do because we all seek popular recognition, especially at his level. But in his statement he fails to see the irony he creates by assigning an almost evil intent to the inanimate object rather than seeking and healing what ails the souls of those who use the object to commit evil which is what he is duty bound to do. It is the equivalent of blaming the cross for the Crucifixion of our Lord.

Miguel Gonzalez
June 4, 2022
Christian Science Monitor: “Has the gun become a sacred object in America?”
[Via an email from pkoning.

Nice analogy! And he did an awesome job handling the questions of the CSM reporter.—Joe]

NOW is time to buy

If you live in or plan to visit Washington state effective July 1, 2022 standard capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds will be illegal to:

manufacture, import, distribute, 22 sell, or offer for sale

Existing magazines in the state can be taken out of the state and then brought back in.

The law has been challenged in court but it is likely to take years to wind it way through the courts and a successful reversal of this unconstitutional law is not guaranteed.

You should seriously consider purchasing all the magazines you expect to need NOW. Here are a few options:

This is what they think of self-defense with a gun

Mayor Jim Kenney and DA Larry Krasner clash over charging man in South Street mass shooting:

Taking issue with a decision by District Attorney Larry Krasner, Mayor Jim Kenney said Wednesday that anyone who fired a weapon during Saturday night’s mass shooting on South Street deserved to be jailed — including the man prosecutors said had acted in self-defense.

Speaking at a virtual gun-violence briefing, Kenney said: “Anybody who fired a gun that day should be locked up.”

Krasner’s office took exception to the mayor’s comments. “He’s not a cop, he’s not an attorney,” said Jane Roh, Krasner’s spokesperson. “The DA and our entire office is incredibly frustrated with the gun violence that’s happening.

“But just like the mayor, we are bound by the law, we cannot invent crimes that don’t exist and facts that aren’t true.”

Would the Mayor insist someone who used a rock to hit and kill the guy who just shot him be locked up too? I’m betting the answer is no. The mayor is prejudiced against gun ownership and using a gun for self-defense.

If he somehow manages to someday get his way and anyone who defended innocent life against imminent danger of serious injury or death is prosecuted then it would be my desire that the mayor and anyone assisting him in such a crime be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

See also this article.

Quote of the day—Danny Westneat

More than 400 officers have left while crime has soared. This past week The Seattle Times and KUOW reported new sex assault cases aren’t being investigated because of understaffing. Meanwhile, the softer approaches envisioned for community safety still are in the pilot stages.

This past week the city announced it is refunding 100,000 parking tickets and voiding another 100,000 because of an oversight — namely that the parking enforcement officers, who are civilians, were not regranted the authority to write tickets after they were switched out of the Police Department last fall.

Danny Westneat
June 4, 2022
Seattle’s botched experiment with defund the police keeps getting worse
[Emphasis added. I cannot believe these people are this stupid. It has to be intentional. These people are verifiably evil.—Joe]