Category: Courts

NY vs. NRA: Statement by Former BOD Timothy Knight

The verdict in the NY vs. NRA case is due shortly.

Although I believe the case had some political motivations behind it based on the words of the New York Attorney General when she was running for office, I don’t think NRA members should dismiss the grave concerns revealed in what is now several court cases.

I, along with a few other directors, expressed concerns over the misappropriation of funds both internally and then later publicly in 2019.

We recognized who our boss actually was: our fellow members who were faithfully paying their dues.

We did not believe the NRA Board and management were holding to the mission of the Association, nor were they being transparent about expenses. Every NRA Director has a duty to the members, the law, and the NRA’s mission statement. Several of us were dismissed from our committees and accused of disloyalty towards the NRA for raising our financial concerns. Most Board members were too scared to stand up to Wayne and his cronies, especially Marion Hammer. Other Board members were part of the management cabal themselves and had no intention of changing a thing. So, the Board circled their wagons and remained silent. They were unwilling or unable to speak up or divided on where their loyalties lay.

The current NRA Board has failed in its duty to the NRA members, and I think that every single Board member who hasn’t openly spoken up about reform and responsibility should resign immediately.

Our Association deserves bold, honorable, and honest Board members focused on their legal responsibilities and on the members who elected them. No more should they focus on those who can dole out favors, vacations, car rides, consulting fees, and other grafts. We need to stop electing the silent, the complicit, or those who hope to be “trusted remainders” when this all blows over. Board members who are 2nd Amendment heroes, politicians, or captains of industry might once have been effective for our association. They are no longer effective and need to resign as well.

To fix our association, we need a much smaller board with term limits as well as a significant revision of the structure the board operates under. Strict disclosure rules for Board members and management need to be enforced and shared with NRA members during the annual meeting. This information should be disclosed to everyone during the main members’ business meeting, which is open to the public.

I trust the members who make up the association and in the mission statement that should always keep it focused. We need new leadership and a new board now. If both do not change, the slow degradation of our once great association will do more damage to our civil rights, hunting culture, gun safety education, and competitions that we can ill afford. My fellow members, if the court does not grant you the remedy you think is deserved, please stop supporting the do nothing, ne’er do wells, and the faded heroes.

I look forward to the day when the NRA, once again, through hard work and results, regains the trust of millions of law-abiding gun owners. We are stronger when we stand together as hunters, competitors, enthusiasts, advocates, and educators.

Timothy Knight
NRA Board of Directors 2015-2019

FPC Notches Win In Georgia Young Adult Carry Ban Challenge

The Firearms Policy Coalition recently won a small victory in the ongoing war against Georgia’s ban on concealed carry for young adults.

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit challenging Georgia’s law banning 18- to 20-year-old citizens from carrying a firearm for self-defense.

In the case Baughcum v. Jackson, the court countered findings by the district court that ruled the individuals represented in the lawsuit didn’t have standing.

“We are confident that the case is not moot—at least as to one of the individual plaintiffs and the FPC,” the ruling stated. “Although Meyer and Long have turned twenty-one while this case has been pending, Baughcum is still twenty. So, his claim (and thus the FPC’s claim based on his membership in the organization) is not moot. Moreover, the FPC is a large membership organization and says it has other eighteen-to twenty-one-year-old members in Georgia, such that it continues to have associational standing to litigate this suit.”

FPC filed the suit on behalf of the three young adults. Since the case was filed, two of them have turned 21, making them eligible to apply for a concealed carry permit under Georgia law.

Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation vice president and general counsel, and counsel for FPC, said his organization was happy to receive the good news from the circuit court.

“We’re pleased that the Eleventh Circuit has agreed with FPC and the individual Plaintiffs that our challenge to Georgia’s unconstitutional age restriction can proceed,” Wisniewski said after the ruling. “The defendants have sought to avoid the actual constitutional issues underlying this case by attempting to distract the Court with theories about why we couldn’t bring this challenge. Now that the Eleventh Circuit has settled that question, we can proceed with what really matters—vindicating the rights of 18- to 20-year-old adults in Georgia.”

When it comes to Constitutionally protected rights, about the only one that is infringed upon for 18- to 20-year-old Americans is the right to keep and bear arms. With the 2022 Supreme Court Bruen decision upholding the right of citizens to carry firearms outside the home, states depriving adults aged 18 to 20 of this right are almost certainly running afoul of the Second Amendment.

This battle for young Americans’ right to keep and bear arms has a lengthy history, yet not much real progress has been made. In fact, in the courtroom the matter has repeatedly taken one step forward, then two steps back—usually after the process is dragged out long enough that the plaintiffs turn 21 and their rights are no longer infringed.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL
WHY THIS WORD IS SHOWING UP MORE IN COURT RULINGS

Just before I sat down to write this week’s installment, a federal district judge in central Florida handed down a 42-page ruling, posted online by Reuters, which declared the long-running ban on carrying firearms inside post offices is a Second Amendment violation.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Donald Trump appointee (see, elections do matter!) put it bluntly, which seems to be a hallmark among conservative judges now unraveling a lot of truly egregious legislation and regulations adopted over the years that have restricted your rights. Here’s part of what she said:

“First, nothing in Supreme Court dicta establishes that the United States may ban firearms in all government buildings. Second, the scope of the Second Amendment right is a legal question, not a factual one, and I need not hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve it. Instead, the government bears the burden to identify historical evidence supporting its challenged regulation. Finally, I explain why the United States errs in arguing that its proprietorship of federal land and buildings excludes vast swathes of the country from the protection of the Second Amendment.”

Elsewhere, Judge Mizelle observed, “Possessing a firearm in a federal facility is an activity that falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment … Thus, the United States must show that a ban on firearms in ordinary post offices is consistent with our nation’s founding-era tradition of firearms regulation.”

Of course, the ruling will be appealed, probably before you read this. But it is now on the record that one more federal restriction on the right to bear arms has been ruled unconstitutional by yet another judge.

California’s long-standing ban on so-called “assault rifles” and “high-capacity

magazines” has been ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez.

This isn’t new, but it is interesting and, in some ways, entertaining. Out in San Diego, California, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez has made something of a habit declaring Golden State gun control laws unconstitutional. He’s done it with the state’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” and so-called “assault weapons.”

Judge Benitez has gotten so far under Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom’s thin skin that the governor has attacked him personally. When Benitez struck down the magazine ban, Newsom posted a rant on his official website calling the judge an “idealogue.”

Judge Benitez last fall ruled the state’s decades-old “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional. California lawmakers were an unhappy lot.

When Judge Cormac Carney more recently struck down the California “sensitive places” gun ban, calling it “repugnant” to the Second Amendment, Newsom issued a statement to the California media.

“Defying common sense, this ruling outrageously calls California’s data-backed gun safety efforts ‘repugnant,’” Newsom told the Los Angeles Times. “What is repugnant is this ruling, which greenlights the proliferation of guns in our hospitals, libraries, and children’s playgrounds — spaces which should be safe for all.”

Judge Carney’s decision was a big win for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and California Rifle & Pistol Association, and their partners in the federal lawsuit challenging the “sensitive places” law.

Judges Benitez and Carney are both George W. Bush appointees.

West Virginia Ruling

Back in December, U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh with the Northern District of West Virginia declared a federal law prohibiting handgun sales to 18-20-year-olds is “facially unconstitutional.” He granted a summary judgment in another case brought by SAF, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.

Another District Court judge, in West Virginia, has ruled that the federal

law prohibiting handgun sales to young adults is “facially unconstitutional.”

In his 40-page decision, Judge Kleeh wrote, “(B)ecause Plaintiffs’ conduct – the purchase of handguns – ‘fall[s] [within] the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command’ and the challenged statutes and regulations are not ‘consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation,’ the Court FINDS 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) facially unconstitutional and as applied to Plaintiffs.”

Judge Kleeh is a Donald Trump appointee.

So, What’s Going On?

Much of this drama can be attributed to language in the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that decision, authored for the majority by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court set down new guidelines for deciding Second Amendment cases.

 

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, official portrait, public domain.

This excerpt from the Thomas opinion probably sums it up: “In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.

Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”

Continue reading “”

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has reversed a lower court decision dismissing a Second Amendment challenge to Georgia’s law banning public carry by 18-20 year olds.

202213444

I can see a ‘Circuit Split’ sometime in the near future…..

Wyoming’s Appeals Court Upholds Law Barring Drug Users From Having Guns
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Wyoming, on Friday upheld a federal law barring drug users from possessing guns. Hunter Biden is charged under that same law in a federal court in Delaware.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Wyoming, on Friday upheld a federal law barring drug users from possessing guns.

The appeals court didn’t say that the statute, 18 USC 922(g)3, is altogether constitutional, just that a lower court judge was wrong to proclaim it unconstitutional in this case.

This decision comes after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals chipped away at the law in a separate case by saying it unconstitutionally denied a marijuana user’s Second Amendment rights. That case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, is charged with that same law in a Delaware federal court. His case is ongoing.

Continue reading “”

Judge blocks Omaha’s ban on guns in public places while lawsuit challenging it moves forward

OMAHA, Neb. — Nebraska’s largest city won’t be able to enforce its ban on guns on all public property, including parks and sidewalks, while a lawsuit challenging that restriction moves forward.
Douglas County District Judge LeAnne Srb issued a preliminary injunction Friday blocking that ban, but she refused to put Omaha’s restrictions on “ghost guns” and bump stocks on hold.

The Liberty Justice Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association arguing that the city restrictions violate a new state law passed last year that allows people to carry concealed guns across the state without a permit and without the need to complete a gun safety course. A similar lawsuit challenging gun restrictions in Lincoln remains pending.

“We are thrilled with the court’s decision to grant this injunction and uphold Nebraskans’ rights against executive overreach,” said Jacob Huebert, president of the Liberty Justice Center. “Under Nebraska law, local governments do not have the authority to regulate firearms — the right to bear arms is protected across the state.”

Just before gun owners filed these lawsuits, Nebraska Attorney General Michael Hilgers published an opinion stating that state law preempts executive orders from the mayors restricting guns.

Omaha City Attorney Matt Kuhse said “while it is unfortunate that the court enjoined the city’s ability to protect our public spaces, we will abide by this order.” But the city will continue to fight the lawsuit.

Judge dismisses Alvin Bragg’s felony case against vax card forgers, says DA has let criminals off for much less

Bragg and his office “move to dismiss significantly more serious counts or entire indictments,” the judge wrote.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg attempted to charge two New York residents with felonies for having false vaccine passports while he has let off others charged with far worse crimes scot-free.

New York State Supreme Court Justice Brendan T. Lantry dismissed the felony charges against the residents, identified as J.O. and R.V. in the decision, who had bought the forged vax passports, usurping Bragg’s decision.

The judge said the two were among 16 others that Bragg had “cherry-picked” to prosecute, according to the case.

Lantry slammed Bragg in the decision decided at the New York Supreme Court on Jan. 30.

The judge wrote in the opinion, “Clearly, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 170.25) is not among the most serious crimes in the New York Penal Law, nor are the factual allegations against Defendants R.V. and J.O. particularly serious in nature.”

“Moreover, the factual allegations — that the Defendants purchased fake COVID-19 vaccination cards so that they could provide same to their employer (R.V.) and school (J.O.) — do not rise to the level of the majority of the crimes adjudicated in Supreme Court, New York County, namely homicide, sexual assault, drug sale, robbery, burglary, and other violent and non-violent serious felony offenses,” Lantry continued.

The judge expanded on the decision that Bragg and his office almost daily “move to dismiss significantly more serious counts or entire indictments” and avoid harsher penalties for far more violent and convicted felons. Bragg also recently allowed a group of all but a single illegal immigrant to be released without bail after they allegedly beat up two NYPD officers. He later defended this saying that the video evidence was not enough to hold the foreign nationals.

NYC government officials, including Bragg, have faced increasing scrutiny over the government’s lackluster effort to control crime in the city as well as the high influx of illegal immigrants.

Michigan School Shooter’s Mother Found Guilty in Precedent Setting Conviction

Jennifer Crumbley, the Michigan mother of a child who carried out a mass school shooting killing four students in 2021, just became the first parent in the U.S. to be held responsible for their child’s criminal actions. She was found guilty today of involuntary manslaughter. The unanimous verdict in the unprecedented case came on the second day of deliberations.

Crumbley, 45, had been charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, one for each victim. Being found guilty, the mother faces up to 15 years in prison for each count. She will be sentenced April 9.

Prosecutors made the case that the mother had a duty under state law to prevent her son’s actions by securing the gun and ammunition at home and obtaining mental health services for her son who had allegedly shown signs of a distressed mental state prior to the shooting.

In what in hindsight now seems like an epic failing by both the parents and the school, Oxford High School in Pontiac, Mich., where a then 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley was a student, the parents, James and Jennifer, had been summoned to the school after the boy was caught drawing pictures of a gun, bullets and a wounded person on a math assignment accompanied by phrases crying out for help. According to a journal police found after the shooting, Ethan had written his parents ignored his pleas for help and lamented that he had mental problems that were going to cause him “to shoot up the…school.”

The parents met with school administrators that morning and talked to Ethan, but then he was allowed to return to class. Nobody checked his backpack, which contained a 9mm SIG, his parents had bought him as an early Christmas present just four days prior.

Jennifer Crumbley had also taken Ethan to the range just three days before and was the last known adult to handle the weapon prior to Ethan using it in the school shooting. The boy, now 17, was charged as an adult with murder and terrorism and eventually pled guilty. He is currently serving life in prison without the possibility of parole.

James Crumbley, the boy’s father, is set to go to trial on March 5, 2024, for the same charges Jennifer faced. He is currently being held in jail on $500,000 bond.

Between firearms storage laws and additional legislation in states across the country, there has been an increasing effort to hold the parents of juvenile mass shooters responsible for their children’s actions where negligence on their part may have played a hand in their child accessing the firearm(s) used in such crimes. With the Crumbley case now setting a precedent for the conviction of a parent

Numerous Amici Join NCLA’s Ask for Supreme Court to Rule Against ATF’s Unilateral Bump Stock Ban

New Civil Liberties Alliance
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Michael Cargill

Washington, D.C., Feb. 02, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ten U.S. Senators, ten law professors, and multiple civil liberties groups, policy research organizations and attorneys have filed 13 amicus curiae briefs supporting the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s position in the Garland v. Cargill case that bump stocks are not machine guns. Representing Texas gun shop owner and Army veteran Michael Cargill, NCLA challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Bump Stock Final Rule and ATF’s expansion of the criminal scope of a statute by administrative fiat. The Final Rule reversed ATF’s long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not illegal machine guns, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rightly shot down the Rule early last year.

NCLA has arranged for former Texas Solicitor-General Jonathan Mitchell to present oral argument to the Supreme Court on Mr. Cargill’s behalf on Feb. 28, urging the Justices to confirm the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. NCLA thanks the amicus parties for standing with Mr. Cargill and thousands of other legal purchasers of bump stocks.

Continue reading “”

18 U.S. Code § 922

(g)It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1)who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;….. to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

What did I mention just last week?

BLUF
Now, we’re all subjects. Last week, four fearful women and a spectacularly weak man, hiding behind their robes of office in a Court whose only constitutionally mandated member is the Chief Justice — leaving the rest to be self-aggrandized — refused to protect the nation without a word of explanation. Message: obey.

Perhaps they’ve forgotten the opening words of the Declaration: “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” If so, what happens next is on them.

The Cold Civil War Gets Warmer

More than a decade ago, somewhere in the pages of National Review Online and writing under the name of my alter-ego, David Kahane, I coined the term, the Cold Civil War, and amplified the subject in my book, Rules for Radical Conservatives. 

Despite all the evidence of the past several decades, you still have not grasped one simple fact: that, just about a century after the last one ended, we engaged in a great civil war, one that will determine the kind of country we and our descendants shall henceforth live in for at least the next hundred years — and, one hopes, a thousand. Since there hasn’t been any shooting, so far, some call the struggle we are now involved in the “culture wars,” but I have another, better name for it: the Cold Civil War.

Hasn’t been any shooting so far. But with his recent rejection of federal authority, Texas governor Greg Abbott may have turned up the heat. Just as the South did during the first Civil War, Texas — supported by fully half the states now — has effectively nullified a Supreme Court order via the simple expedient of ignoring it. In this Abbott recalls another southern president, Andrew Jackson, who (perhaps apocryphally) in the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832), said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Or, to paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does John Roberts have? The Court’s authority derives from the will and the respect of the governed. But when an institution turns rogue, and refuses to act in defense of the nation in the face of clear and present danger, all bets are off.

It’s notable that all four of the women on the Court — at least two too many, but a potent indicator of the continuing feminization of the Republic — flocked together, with Roberts the deciding vote. By now, conservatives are used to getting stabbed in the back from this enduring legacy of the Bush II administration, right up there with the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security/TSA. Bush may be gone — and not all that gone, when you think about it — but the evil he did lives on:

Three former U.S. presidents – Republican George W. Bush and Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama – have banded together behind a new group aimed at supporting refugees from Afghanistan settling in the United States following the recent American withdrawal ending 20 years of war. The former leaders and their wives will serve as part of Welcome.US, a coalition of advocacy groups, U.S. businesses and other leaders.

Just what we need, another “advocacy group,” as if the U.S. government itself hasn’t already been transformed into one under these three presidents and their love child, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. But here we are, in the middle of the biggest mass invasion in American history, a tidal wave of largely penurious humanity, unvetted, unchecked, of unknown health status, many of them without passports or any form of identification, criminals upon crossing our borders, and none of them bearing any loyalty to the country — and until recently, no one raised a hand to stop it.

Continue reading “”

I don’t have a bump stock, never did, probably never will. But when bureaucraps redefine a law to suit a political agenda restricting the people’s exercise of a right, they need to get slapped down….hard.

CRPA & Allies File SCOTUS Amicus Brief in Garland v. Cargill

CRPA has joined with several other pro 2A organizations and filed a friend of the court “amicus” legal brief in Garland v. Cargill. The case is set for argument before the Supreme Court on February 28, 2024.

The Cargill case will decide whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.”

The case is primarily about the scope of the ATF’s regulatory authority and whether it can freely change its positions and interpretations of federal law. It does not explicitly involve any Second Amendment claims. Nonetheless, our amicus brief advises the Court about the significant risk to Second Amendment rights if it rules in favor of the ATF. The ATF has shown an unfortunate willingness to reverse its opinion about the legality of a device whenever it suits the political whims of the Biden administration.

ATF did this on bump stocks, incomplete lower receivers, and pistol braces. So our amicus brief warns the Court that if it finds that a bump stock is a “machine gun,” the logical next step that ATF, or governments hostile to the Second Amendment, could pursue would be to reclassify most or all semiautomatic rifles as illegal fully-automatic machineguns because they could be converted (illegally) to fully automatic. There is support for that position in the Seventh Circuit’s recent absurd ruling upholding Illinois’s “assault weapon” ban, where it wrongly concluded that the semi-automatic AR-15 and the fully automatic M-16 were virtually indistinguishable so that semi-automatic rifles can be banned.

The amicus brief lays out a history demonstrating that Americans have always owned so-called “military” small arms, and expanding the ATF’s authority such that it believes it could regulate semiautomatic firearms would cause chaos and potentially millions of accidental criminals.

Joining CRPA on the brief are the Second Amendment Law Center, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, and Guns Save Life. Multiple additional briefs are expected to be filed in the next few days.

The brief urges the Supreme Court to affirm the 5th Circuit’s ruling in favor of Mr. Cargill, and to reaffirm that commonly possessed semiautomatic rifles cannot be banned.  You can read the brief HERE.

Sen. Kennedy Humiliates Another Biden Nominee Who Can’t Answer a Simple Question.

This makes no sense whatsoever, but then most goobermint doesn’t

State: ‘Government has no authority’ to impose penalties for not registering banned guns
Data shows 5,900 registered banned guns in Illinois after Jan. 1

(The Center Square) – The state of Illinois says “government has no authority” to impose criminal penalties for those not registering banned firearms.

Illinois State Police have updated the gun ban registration numbers to include those who registered after the Jan. 1 deadline. On top of the 29,357 individuals who registered before the deadline, 5,867 have registered since. The total of those registering before and after the deadline of 35,224 is 1.46% of the state’s more than 2.4 million Firearm Owners ID card holders.

Also updated is a list of how many individuals registered banned items per county. Cook County had the highest numbers of those registering at 6,364. Pope County had the fewest at five.

Lawsuits against the gun ban and registry continue in state and federal court.

In their response to a Fifth Amendment challenge to the state’s gun ban and registry in the Southern District of Illinois federal court, attorneys for the state say the right against self-incrimination isn’t violated by the registry.

The state’s lawyers argue the registration is a “voluntary benefit that exempts owners of certain” firearms from “otherwise applicable criminal penalties.” They also argue the “government has no authority to impose” penalties on those that don’t register and the idea someone would be prosecuted for what they file is “not real.”

“[T]he fanciful chain of events they have dreamed up has no serious chance of coming to fruition,” the filing said.

The filing is part of the ongoing litigation that plaintiffs’ attorney Thomas Maag predicts will get to the merits of the issues in the months ahead.

“It was clear from what [Judge Stephen McGlynn] said that he said that the lawyers should not plan on missing any breaks over the summer,” Maag told The Center Square. “That the judge wants to have a trial on the merits before June.”

Separately in state court last week, an Effingham County judge denied attorney Thomas DeVore’s attempt to reinstate his gun ban challenges that were vacated last year after the Illinois Supreme Court sided with the state in the case brought by state Rep. Dan Caulkins, R-Decatur.

DeVore said he’s taken the case to the appellate court.

“The judge just kicked the can down the road, he didn’t stop this case,” DeVore told The Center Square. “And the Illinois Supreme Court in their ruling in Caulkins did one good thing, is they gave me a roadmap on how I can win the arguments on equal protection.”

DeVore contends the state saying exempt classes of people, like active duty and retired police, security and prison guards, have specialized training is a “legal fiction.”

“If you break them down, you will find that almost none of them have a duty to protect the public order and the training,” he said.

All preliminary attempts in state and federal court at blocking the law from being implemented have not resulted in the law being overturned. It’s expected the issue will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.