Biden’s Stolen Valor rant is no surprise to gun owners

Joe Biden walked onstage in front of a group of veterans Friday and then stole their valor.

Biden told the veterans his Uncle Frank was wounded during the Battle of the Bulge, but somehow never received the Purple Heart. Biden claimed he first learned of the oversight when he was vice president, from his father.

“So, I got him the Purple Heart. He had won it in the Battle of the Bulge. And I remember he came over to the house and I came out and my father said; ‘Present it to him, okay?’ We had the family there,” Biden said at the veterans’ townhall, according to media accounts.

Of course, there are massive factual errors in Biden’s latest tall tale. Biden’s uncle died in 1999. His father died in 2002, but Biden wasn’t elected vice president until 2008, so there is no way he could have presented his uncle the medal while serving as vice president. Also, there’s no documentation that Biden’s uncle ever received or was recommended for a Purple Heart — either before or after his nephew became vice president.

Biden’s latest lie comes as no surprise to gun owners. We’ve been hooting and hollering about his Second Amendment-related lies for years, but no one listened.

In August, during a rambling and often incoherent campaign speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Biden added yet another outlandish fib to his usual list of firearm falsehoods.

“Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun?” Biden asked the crowd.

To be clear, the AR round is quick, but it’s certainly not the fastest, and it’s definitely not five-times faster than all other calibers, which would be ballistically impossible.

In April, Biden created another fanciful tale, and like his Stolen Valor rant, he gave himself the starring role.

Biden was in southern Delaware, he claimed, trudging through the woods during hunting season, when he happened upon a hunter in a creek bed. The hunter asked him if he was going to confiscate his rifle, which Biden said he realized held 20 rounds. “You must be a terrible shot to need that many rounds,” Biden claimed he told the hunter in the creek bed. “Do you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests?”

This tale was the latest version of one of Biden’s favorite quips, which states that anyone who uses a standard-capacity magazine must be a terrible shot, because deer don’t wear Kevlar vests.

Takeaways

Biden’s stolen valor claims are far worse than his previous false tall tales about Corn Pop, blonde leg hair or fictitious prohibitions regarding civilian cannon ownership.

He is the Commander-in-Chief, after all, the very top of the chain-of-command. By definition, every single member of the military is his subordinate. The CINC receives a lot of salutes, but the job also comes with tremendous responsibility, which Biden seems to ignore.

There’s no doubt that among Friday’s crowd were real Purple Heart recipients — men and women who sacrificed parts of their bodies for our freedom. They deserve an immediate apology, although they’ll likely never receive one.

Be it guns or stolen valor, Joe Biden will never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

OK. Some take-aways from these recent car jacking articles.

  1. The crims appear to run in packs of at least 3, so a 6 shot revolver might not be enough to TCOB. Considering ‘up-sizing’ your firepower may be a prudent idea.
  2. Attention to your surroundings is vital, as is the plan to immediately respond with force and strike hard.

Investigators claim teen died in attempted Little Rock carjacking, two other teens facing murder charge 

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Affidavits released Monday show investigators believe a juvenile died after being shot when he and two teens attempted to carjack a woman outside a Little Rock apartment Sunday night.

The teens, identified as 18-year-old Daryl Jones and 15-year-old Tamarion Jones, now both face a charge of capital murder in the case.

The driver told the officer three people had come up to the driver’s car, with one of them, who police later identified as Kenneth Perkins, tapping on the window with a gun and telling the driver to get out of the car. The driver then told officers that they asked Perkins, who police said was the juvenile who died in the incident, what they said, and in the confusion, pulled out their own gun.

The driver said at that point the two began shooting at each other, and afterwards the driver said they ran back to their apartment and called 911.

Investigators started searching the area Sunday night and identified Perkins and the two Joneses as suspects. Officers said they found Perkins suffering from gunshot wounds, and he was rushed to Arkansas Children’s Hospital where he died from his injuries. His death is the 79th homicide in Little Rock this year.

Daryl Jones and Tamarion Jones were both taken into custody, with officers saying they each said the other was carrying a weapon during the incident. Investigators claimed the younger Jones said the older Jones and the juvenile who died were “always stealing cars and robbing people.”

Prosecutors approved of Tamarion Jones being prosecuted as an adult. Both he and Daryl Jones are facing the murder charge as well as an aggravated robbery charge. Both are being held without bond and are scheduled to go back in front of a judge in February.

Police said 18-year-old Daryl Jones (left) and 15-year-old Tamarion Jones (right) are both facing capital murder and aggravated robbery charges tied to an attempted carjacking that left a third teen dead.
Police said 18-year-old Daryl Jones (left) and 15-year-old Tamarion Jones (right) are both facing capital murder and aggravated robbery charges tied to an attempted carjacking that left a third teen dead.

The driver is not currently facing any charges in the incident.

“No one wants to take your guns”………….

Incrementalism in Action: Anti-Gun Governor Targets Lawfully Registered Firearms for Seizure

There are two absolutes in gun control strategy, and both were on display recently when Gov. Ned Lamont (D-CT) proposed to renege on a promise twice made to the state’s law-abiding gun owners: that they could keep their newly-banned firearms if they registered them with the state.

Connecticut has passed two bans on so-called “assault weapons,” one in 1993 and then an expanded version in 2013.

Each time, the law affected common and popular semi-automatic firearms already owned by law-abiding residents of the state. And each time, the state assured those gun owners that their lawfully-acquired guns would be “grandfathered” under the law if the state were apprised of who owned them and where they were kept.

This led to the sad and ominous spectacle of gun owners who were under no individual suspicion of wrongdoing queing up to report their own identity and constitutionally-protected property to police. As a news report noted, “The application requires information such as the individual’s name, address, telephone number, motor vehicle operator’s license, sex, height, weight and thumbprint, as well as information about the weapon, including the serial number, model and any unique markings.” It was eerily similar, in fact, to the information used when booking someone for a crime.

Meanwhile, some well-meaning but naïve gun owners thought they were simply doing their civic duty by complying with the mandate. “If they were trying to make them illegal, I’d have a real issue, but if they want to just know where they are, that’s fine with me,” one registrant told a local news station.

Readers of this website and other NRA publications knew better, however, as the Association has warned for years of the aforementioned absolutes: that gun control advances incrementally and that firearm registration leads to firearm confiscation.

Following a gubernatorial debate in November, Lamont told reporters: “I think those assault-style weapons that are grandfathered should not be grandfathered.” He continued, “They should not be allowed in the state of Connecticut. I think they’re killers.”

Pressed for specifics on how he would go about enforcing his proposal or recovering the 81,849 “assault weapons” registered with the state, Lamont did not provide details. “Start by making them illegal,” he said. “I think that would be a big difference. That is what you start with.”

In other words, without any explanation of how his plan would work or promote public safety, Lamont is proposing to make tens of thousands of state citizens who complied in good faith with the registration requirements into criminals, with their guns summarily declared contraband and subject to seizure. To make matters worse, the authorities would already know who and where those citizens are.

Lamont ludicrously claimed that the grandfathered guns themselves are “killers,” but he provided no evidence that their owners are. He did not cite statistics, or even examples, of lawfully registered “assault weapons” that were later used in crime. Meanwhile, registered or not, semiautomatic long guns of the types banned in Connecticut are rarely used in homicide, as we have noted time and again, including here, here, and here.

Despite these facts, Lamont seems intent on executing his plan to reclassify peaceable Connecticut residents lawfully exercising their constitutional rights as felons. His example illustrates very clearly what the reassurances of gun control advocates are worth and how anyone who thinks its safe to rely on such reassurances will be in for a rude awakening.

Indeed, the month after Lamont announced his intentions, an editorial in the Connecticut Mirror argued that constitutional assurances the right to keep and bear arms will be protected should themselves be repealed. “It is time to talk about repealing the Second Amendment,” the author insisted. But he made it clear that his plan wasn’t necessarily an alternative to incrementalism but a potential aid to it. “[T]he very existence of a loud argument about the larger issue of repeal will make those incremental proposals seem more moderate, and therefore ultimately more achievable,” the editorialist wrote.

Second Amendment advocates are often faulted for opposing supposedly moderate, “common sense gun safety laws” that fall well short of a comprehensive ban on all types of firearms. But the savvy ones know that punishing law-abiding people for exercising their constitutional rights does not stop criminals, and today’s accommodation for the good guys with guns is tomorrow’s “loophole” that will eventually close around their necks. This is even more so when the authorities already know who owns guns and where those guns are kept.

It’s simple: The object of gun control is the outlawing and seizure of firearms from law-abiding citizens.

But don’t just take our word for it.

Ask Gov. Ned Lamont.

Remember This Whenever Moslems Demand More ‘Rights’ in the West.

Egypt’s Ministry of Endowments recently announced a new record: 1,200 new mosques were opened in the year 2022.

Moreover, in the two years between September 2020 and September 2022, a total of 3,116 mosques were opened (2,712 new; 404 renovated).

Since Abdel Fateh al-Sisi became president in 2014, the total number of mosques to be opened, repaired, or replaced — costing Egypt more than ten billion pounds [~$400 million]— is 9,600.

(One can almost hear the “Allahu akbars!”)

What about the religious places of worship that, for centuries before Egypt’s conquest by Muslim Arabs, dotted that nation’s landscape — namely, Christian churches? How fare they?

As is well known, when it comes to any question concerning the indigenous Christians of Egypt, the Copts, and their churches, accurate information — especially by way of numbers — is difficult to ascertain from the official channels.

As such, I contacted and spoke with one of the most astute analysts on the so-called Coptic question, the Egyptian-born Magdi Khalil, an author and public debater (appearing in approximately 1,500 televised debates, including on Al Jazeera) who specializes in citizenship rights, civil society, and the situation of minorities in the Middle East.

During our phone conversation, Khalil offered up the best-known figures he has been able to ascertain, after making clear that, “as you know, there are no absolutely accurate numbers from Egypt that aren’t politicized.”

He said there are a total of approximately 5,200 Christian institutions in Egypt, including all churches and monasteries from every denomination. As for Islamic institutions, there are 120,000 mosques and over one million prayer halls in the country.

This disparity alone underscores the extreme discrimination Christians face in Egypt. Considering that Copts of all denominations make up, at the very least, 10% of Egypt’s population of 104 million, there is one mosque or prayer hall for every 83 Muslims, but only one church for every 2,000 Christians.*

In 2016, a new Egyptian law was touted as “easing” restrictions on and helping many more churches to open.  Since its implementation, however, human rights groups have noted that it has only marginally helped. Khalil agreed, and said that at best, the 2016 law has made a “5-10 percent improvement.” But, by applying only to churches, as opposed to being a universal law for all religious places of worship, the new law has also formalized the Egyptian government’s divisive — or in Khalil’s words, “racist” — approach to its citizens. He is not alone in making this charge; even Human Rights Watch says that the new law ultimately “discriminates against the Christian minority in Egypt.”

Along with the ease Egypt grants to the building of mosques, often overlooked is the fact that the government also completely subsidizes a great many, if not most, of Egypt’s mosques. (Over 4 billion Egyptian pounds are paid annually by the state to subsidize the Ministry of Islamic Endowments, which is charged with affairs related to mosques and Islamic da‘wa [propaganda]. Moreover, 22 billion Egyptian pounds are annually paid to Al Azhar, which has a parallel educational system, or madrasa, from KG to university, with 2.8 million pupils and students.)

Conversely, not only does Egypt make it immensely hard for Christians to open or maintain churches, but the government does not contribute a “single penny” to their survival, said Khalil. Churches are even required to pay their utility bills, which no mosque in Egypt does, as the government happily picks up their bill.

Aside from the obvious discrimination and legal obstacles the government of Egypt has set up against churches, Khalil and I also spoke a bit about the Muslim mob violence that sporadically rises up against Christian places of worship. According to Khalil, “close to one thousand churches have been attacked or torched by mobs in the last five decades [since the 1970s] in Egypt.” This is a much larger number than is commonly assumed.

Khalil closed by saying, “The persecution of Egypt’s Christian Copts is the longest ongoing persecution in the history of mankind, from 642, to today, 2022. Through all this time, maybe 70 years under British occupation were peaceful and good — the “golden era” for Copts in all this duration. Then [during the colonial era] there was much more diversity in the government, including some Coptic ministers, etc. But the overwhelming majority of the time witnessed the Copts’ persecution.”

“I know of no group,” concluded Khalil, “that has been persecuted for nearly 1400 years — with still no light at the end of the tunnel.”

Judge Blocks California Fee-Shifting Statute That Targets Gun Lawsuit Plaintiffs (and Lawyers)

From Miller v. Bonta, decided today by Judge Roger Benitez (S.D. Cal.):

“It is cynical.” “It is an abomination.” “It is outrageous and objectionable.” “There is no dispute that it raises serious constitutional questions.” “It is an unprecedented attempt to thwart judicial review.” Such are the Intervenor-Defendant Governor’s expressed views regarding the fee-shifting provisions of a Texas law (S.B. 8) and, at least by implication, of California’s § 1021.11. It is “blatantly unconstitutional,” says Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta. {To his credit, given the obvious, the Attorney General has refused to defend § 1021.11.} For the reasons that follow, as they may apply to S.B. 8, but apply clearly to § 1021.11, § 1021.11 is declared unconstitutional. Therefore, Defendants are permanently enjoined throughout the state from enforcing or taking any action to seek attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to § 1021.11.

[A.] Texas S.B. 8 (§ 30.022) and California S.B. 1327 (§ 1021.11)

Continue reading “”

Kostas Moros
Associate Attorney at Michel & Associates Los Angeles
Represents California Rifle & Pistol Association

Yes, “assault rifle” has an actual meaning while “assault weapon” was more of a political invention (though there is some history of the gun community using the term before that).

But getting hung up on terminology is an unconvincing exercise. It’s also why I stopped caring

about correcting “clip” when someone means “magazine” (except when that person earnestly wants to learn) because it is beside the point.

Instead, our position should be that all semiautomatic* small arms should be legal to own, regardless of what grips or attachments or  magazines come with them and regardless of what term, political or otherwise, is used to describe them. I don’t care if you call them a “weapon of war”. Good. The Second Amendment was indisputably meant to protect such small arms most of all, as the historical record proves.

I have to admit I roll my eyes when I hear “modern sporting rifle”.

Just say semiautomatic rifle. It’s useful for sport yes, but also personal defense, hunting, and of course, the core purpose of 2A – opposing tyranny. Own it. They are going to hate us either way. 

*the logic applies equally to full auto small arms, but that’s a future battle. I don’t think this Supreme Court is striking Hughes down quite yet, hope I’m wrong. 
19th century texts show us that access to “weapons of war” was seen as the core purpose of the 2A, even towards the end of the century when revolvers and lever-action rifles proliferated, which were orders of magnitude more capable than their predecessors.ImageImage
Even those of the era that thought small weapons could be restricted nevertheless saw the 2A as protecting access to the arms of modern warfare.Image

This is a great intellectually honest video about the AR15.

And for what I mean by the use of the term “assault weapon” among the gun community, there are a few examples. This is from 1986.Image

Canada had a mass shooting even with tyrannical gun control laws designed to prevent mass shootings and or overthrowing said tyrannical government

Please check your baggage

Guns confiscated at US airports hit record levels

A record number of firearms was confiscated from US airport passengers in 2022, transport officials have said.

A total of 6,301 guns were taken at checkpoints as of mid-December – and of those 88% were still loaded.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said it expects to confiscate 6,600 guns by year’s end – a 10% increase over 2021’s record level.

The agency said guns brought to airports consumes significant resources and is very costly for the passenger.

The number of guns found surpasses the previous record from just last year, when 5,972 firearms were detected.

Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta, Georgia, had the highest number of recorded firearm stops, while Dallas/Fort Worth Airport in the state of Texas had the second highest.

No reason was given for why more people were attempting to clear security while carrying a weapon.

Gun possession laws vary by US state, but firearms are not allowed in the passenger cabin on an aeroplane, even if a passenger has a concealed weapon permit.

If TSA officials detect a weapon at a checkpoint, they issue a civil penalty that varies by number of previous offenses and whether the gun was loaded at the time.

The agency also said it is raising the maximum civil penalty for a firearms violation from $13,910 (£11,450) to $14,950.

Airline passengers can travel with firearms in a checked bag when they are unloaded and locked in a hard-sided case. Travellers must also tell airline representatives that they intend to travel with the weapon during check-in.

In April a US Congressman, Madison Cawthorn, was stopped attempting to bring a gun through security at the Charlotte Douglas International Airport in North Carolina, local police said. He admitted the weapon was his and cooperated with officers.

The TSA said it screened more than 2.5 million individuals nationwide on 27 November – the Sunday after the Thanksgiving holiday – marking the highest volume since the start of the pandemic.

There were an estimated 390 million guns in circulation in the US in 2018, according to figures from the Small Arms Survey – a Swiss-based leading research project.

Homeowner shoots, kills intruder, second suspect arrested

WINSON CO., Ala. (WBRC) – The Winston County Sheriff’s Office says a home invasion on Dec. 13 resulted in the homeowner shooting and killing of one of the intruders.

The invasion happened at a home off County Road 21 in the Poplar Springs area. Deputies arrived on scene and found a male dead in the home.

WCSO says they learned two suspects entered the home, one of them armed with a handgun. That suspect hit one of the residents in the head with the handgun.

The sheriff’s office says the suspect then began shooting inside the home.

One of the residents then shot and killed the armed suspect according to the sheriff’s office.

The other suspect then fled the scene.

The Winston County Sheriff’s Office, with the help of the Walker County Sheriffs Office, was able to locate the 2nd suspect.

Authorities say the Walker County Sheriffs Office transported the suspect to their office where he was interviewed. After interviewing the suspect, he was arrested for Robbery 1st degree.

The 2nd suspect is Donald Webb Jr. of Jasper according to the sheriff’s office. Webb was transported to the Winston County Sheriffs Office where he was booked in. Webb could face other charges for his involvement.

The resident that shot and killed the intruder has not been charged.

Homeowner shoots, seriously injures intruder in Pahrump [Nevada]

The Nye County Sheriff’s Office says a homeowner in Pahrump shot an armed intruder who was wanted for violating their parole.

On Thursday, December 15, at around 9:30 p.m., Nye County Sheriff’s Office Deputies responded to the 6000 block of East Kellogg Road for a report of a shooting.

During their investigation, deputies learned 48-year-old Shawn Richard of Pahrump had unlawfully entered a home.

During the invasion, the homeowner, who was armed with a firearm shot and critically injured Richard as he attempted to enter the bedroom of the home.

Richard was transported to a nearby hospital.

The Sheriff’s Office says Richard was in possession of a shotgun that was stolen from a home invasion the previous night.

Richard was wanted at the time for probation violation.

Richard faces new charges of Home Invasion, Grand Larceny of a Firearm, Burglary and Prohibited Person in possession of a firearm.

Educator brags about indoctrinating kids, then complains about ‘right-wing’ reporting on it.

[Yep, that kind of weirdo is what some people let teach their children]

Believes right-wing is ‘legitimately trying to bring down our democracy’ A Chicago-area high school “literacy coach” recently recorded a video of herself in which she admits to indoctrinating the students in her charge.Fox News reports Crete-Monee High’s Heather Marie Godbout (pictured), a member of the school’s Equity Team, also rips “right-wing conspiracy theorist nut jobs” in her video and notes she is opposed to traditional grading policies — because grades get “conflated with other things that aren’t actually learning, like effort or ‘work ethic,’ whatever that means.”“All you right wing conspiracy theory nut jobs who seem to think the teachers are out here just indoctrinating children into some sort of woke agenda that you can’t actually define, I’m just going to come clean,” Godbout says. “I am, in fact, indoctrinating your children.”

“I’m indoctrinating children into understanding their own agency and learning how to think critically about the issues that impact their lives… I am indoctrinating children into wanting to be productive citizens of the world… So that’s what I’m doing. I’m indoctrinating them. You’re 100% right.”

In response to a commenter who asks why she appears so angry, Godbout says believes conservatives “are legitimately trying to bring down our democracy,” create “a Christian nationalist theocracy” and “literally un-alive people.” Thus, they aren’t worthy of respect.

In a follow-up video, Godbout complains she is the latest “teacher on TikTok” targeted by Fox News Digital. But she says while Fox News’s article about her is supposed to be “insulting,” she doesn’t actually consider it so.

“I’m fine … my administrators fully support my First Amendment rights to free speech on my own social media platforms,” Godbout says. She notes she’s received only a few “nasty-grams” from people who had bothered to look up her school email, including one from a “Phil McCracken.”

Godbout also points out given how strong tenure and teachers’ unions are in Illinois, any controversy over her remarks have been but a “blip.”

“Ive really had no negative repercussions,” she says. “But … this brings up the larger point about teachers and our ability to speak truth to power and to try to make sure we are creating schools that are, um, equitable and safe and helping to create the society we all want to live in.”

Godbout claims queer teachers, teachers of color and teachers who work in union-weak states face a “chilling effect” with (right-leaning) news outlets reporting on them: “All of this … bullying is designed to shut us up so that [conservatives] can continue to push their agenda.”

Concealed Carry Permit Holder Shot 2 In Chicago Ridge Mall Shooting

CHICAGO RIDGE, IL — A concealed carry permit holder shot two people outside a restaurant at Chicago Ridge Mall Thursday evening. Police believe it is related to an ongoing domestic disagreement.

Around 8:20 p.m., a couple was approached by three men as they were entering their vehicle in the parking lot. The concealed carry permit holder shot multiple rounds at the men, police said. Two of the trio suffered non-threatening gunshot wounds.

One of the men who approached the couple was arrested, police said. The man, identified as Reginald T. Williams, of Chicago, who turns 24 on Sunday, was charged with battery. He is also being held on an unrelated arrest warrant.

After an extensive investigation, it was determined that the concealed carry holder who filed the shots would not be charged. All the people involved were adults. No bond hearing has been set.

Oath of Office for CongressCritters
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]

MAYORS ON GUN CONTROL LETTER HAVE ONE BIG THING IN COMMON

Dozens of mayors from America’s biggest cities are demanding the U.S. Senate pass more gun control.

“We write to urge the Senate to pass during the lame duck session gun safety legislation that has passed the House…,” the mayors’ letter states.

An answer to the crime problem plaguing these cities might not be found in Congress. Rather the mayors should look closer to home for solutions. Or better yet, take a good long look in the mirror.

The First Demand
The letter was sent by The United States Conference of Mayors and was signed by 74 mayors. They made two demands of U.S. Sens. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). First, they want the Senate to pass S. 736, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022, which would ban an entire class of firearms – Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) — that are commonly-owned and commonly-used. Industry data estimates there are more than 24.4 million in circulation since 1990, with ownership exploding in recent years.

Enacting the ban on MSRs, or the semiautomatic centerfire rifles the mayors misleadingly deem “assault weapons,” would not “in any way infringe on Second Amendment rights,” the mayors suggest. They claim two-thirds of Americans support banning MSRs but The Reload reported that’s flat false – revealing less than 50 percent of Americans support such a ban. That’s likely because more law-abiding Americans than ever before – including women and minorities – have purchased MSRs to use for self-defense, recreational shooting and hunting. In any event, Constitutional rights are not decided by a popularity contest.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows more murders were committed by individuals using knives, fists and clubs than by those using any rifle – not just MSRs like AR-15s. The Senate bill would likely not even receive 50 votes, let alone the 60 votes required, as Sens. John Tester (D-Mont.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) have repeatedly voiced opposition.

The Second Demand
The letter’s second demand is for the Senate to pass a bill enacting a universal background check system to track all firearm transfers, including private ones. The mayors say this is “closing loopholes” and stopping buyers from “circumventing the law.” Those two phrases are oxymorons as the law is the law as written – it’s not loopholes or circumvention.

The legislation, S. 529, The Background Check Expansion Act, has severe legal problems as its implementation requires a national firearm registry. That’s specifically prohibited under the 1986 Gun Control Act and the 1993 Brady Act. It is unlawful because history teaches us that registration is a necessary precursor to confiscation by the government.

The legislation would also, “aid law enforcement’s ability to trace crime guns.” They want to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment which restricts public access to sensitive, law enforcement-only firearm tracing data. This restriction is supported by Congress, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) because it secures sensitive tracing information which would jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations and put the lives of law enforcement officers, cooperating retailers and witnesses at risk. They also fail to mention that their own law enforcement agencies have access to trace data for their cities, that they can share data with other agencies and that ATF has joint task forces and regularly shares intelligence with state and local law enforcement often derived from examining trace data.

Who Signed?
The signers are a who’s who of gun control supporters, with one glaring similarity. Democrats make up 92 percent, or 68 of the 74 letter co-signers. The mayors of several of the Top 10 cities which had the most Americans fleeing them in recent years signed, including San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Seattle, Chicago and Detroit. Surging crime and soft-on-criminal policies have been a significant issue in those cities.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams signed. He ran his campaign on getting tough on criminals but has instead deflected action and pushed for national gun control.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler signed the letter. His city descended into chaos and saw a federal courthouse set on fire by rioters. Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell signed too. Criminals in Seattle under previous mayor Jenny Durkan set up a “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,” or CHAZ, where law enforcement was prohibited. That’s where “Raz the Warlord” was captured on video handing out AR-15s from his Tesla’s trunk, violating several of Seattle’s existing gun laws.

Chicago’s Lori Lightfoot has been too busy making dance music videos to address the surging crime problem plaguing the Windy City and San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo already passed gun ownership restrictions on residents even though he admitted to CNN his plans won’t address the crime problem. “Skeptics will say that criminals won’t comply. They’re right,” he said.

Several of the mayors who signed the gun control letter come from Red states where voters have approved Constitutional carry laws in the past years and expanded the ability of law-abiding Americans to purchase legal firearms, including MSRs, for self-defense.

What the mayors refuse to accept is that criminals don’t follow their laws. They should focus their efforts closer to home and hold criminals accountable instead of running to Washington, D.C., and passing the buck.

Homeowner shoots, kills burglary suspect in Washington [state]

VANCOUVER, Wash. (KATU) — Authorities said a would-be burglar was shot and killed by a homeowner after he reportedly broke in through the window of a house in Vancouver, Washington.

The Vancouver Police Department said officers received reports of a burglary in progress at a home on Thursday at about 11:20 p.m.

According to police, someone broke a second-story window and went inside the home.

He was confronted by the homeowner, who shot the suspect.

Arriving officers found the suspect dead.

The Vancouver Police Department Major Crimes Unit is investigating the shooting.

 

Judge Benitez’s Latest Order in Miller v. Bonta Sets the Stage for Taking Down California’s Assault Weapons Ban

Federal Judge Roger Benitez (a/k/a “Saint Benitez” to the 2A faithful) has just entered an interesting order in Miller v. Bonta, the challenge to California’s “assault weapons” ban. It’s not a decision on the merits, but I read it as a pretty clear indication of where he is going and the fact that he intends to try and make his decision appeal-proof.

Recall that after a trial to the bench, Judge Benitez ruled that California had failed to establish that its AWB satisfied either the “text, history, tradition” standard, or the “intermediate scrutiny” test then being used by the Ninth Circuit in Second Amendment cases. He thus invalidated the California “assault weapons” ban.

An appeal was taken, and the Ninth Circuit stayed the case pending resolution of another Ninth Circuit case (Rupp v. Bonta).  While that stay was in place, SCOTUS handed down Bruen, which adopted “text, history, tradition” as the sole test in Second Amendment cases.

That led the Ninth Circuit to punt the Miller v. Bonta appeal back to Judge Benitez “for further proceedings consistent with” the Bruen decision. To me, this was a dodge/delaying tactic, as Benitez’s decision already held that California lost under the “text, history, tradition” test that Bruen adopted, and thus the Court should have simply proceeded with the appeal.

On remand, California essentially asked for a “do-over” where it could take discovery, introduce new evidence, etc. That generally isn’t allowed unless the court (or the court of appeals) has ordered a new trial. Remember, there has already been a trial and a decision in the case. Benitez thus denied the state’s various motions and merely requested additional briefing, which has now been filed.

After a status conference earlier this week, the following minute entry just dropped (h/t Cody Wisniewski of the Firearms Policy Coalition for notifying me) . . .

2022-12-12: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez:
Status Conference held on 12/12/2022.

The state defendants shall create, and the plaintiffs shall meet and confer regarding, a survey or spreadsheet of relevant statutes, laws, or regulations in chronological order. The listing shall begin at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and continue through twenty years after the Fourteenth Amendment. For each cited statute/law/regulation, the survey shall provide:
(a) the date of enactment;
(b) the enacting state, territory, or locality;
(c) a description of what was restricted (e.g., dirks, daggers, metal knuckles, storage of gunpowder or cartridges, or use regulations);
(d) what it was that the law or regulation restricted;
(e) what type of weapon was being restricted (e.g., knife, Bowie Knife, stiletto, metal knuckles, pistols, rifles);
(f) if and when the law was repealed and whether it was replaced;
(g) whether the regulation was reviewed by a court and the outcome of the courts review (with case citation). Defendants may create a second survey covering a time period following that of the first list. If opposing parties cannot agree on the inclusion of a particular entry on the survey, the disagreement shall be indicated and described on a separate list.

The survey list shall be filed within 30 days. Parties may file a brief up to 25 pages within 30 days thereafter focusing on relevant analogs. Parties may file a responsive brief within 10 days thereafter. Parties shall agree within 20 days on deposing Mr. Roth and Mr. Cramer at an agreed place and time.

What this means:

  • The Court is laser-focused on the state of the law in 1791, but will also at least listen to arguments about what the state of the law was between then and shortly after 1868 (when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified). But while he’ll also let California file whatever they want regarding subsequent developments in the law, it’s pretty clear that Judge Benitez isn’t interested in that. For a very good analysis of why the only relevant consideration is what the law was in 1791, see this essay by Second Amendment guru Stephen Halbrook, as well as Justice Barrett’s concurrence in Bruen (pp.82-83 of the opinion).
  • Benitez is making the parties present it as a joint report. To me, that’s clearly directed to minimizing the possibility of evidentiary objections on appeal.
  • The stuff he’s asking for has been exhaustively documented already (see the Bruen opinion on this). I think Benitez knows it’s not going to contain much if anything that hasn’t been covered already.
  • I’m assuming that Roth and Cramer are California’s proposed new “expert witnesses,” and he’s allowing their depositions to perpetuate their testimony. In light of his earlier rulings, I suspect he’ll stick to his guns that California doesn’t get a “do-over,” but by doing this he can probably make some additional findings (e.g., “I’ve already ruled the state doesn’t get a do-over, but even if I reopened evidence and considered this proffered new evidence, it wouldn’t change my previous findings”). Again, I see it as Benitez thinking three moves ahead to make his decision bulletproof.

This probably pushes any decision in this case 90 days or so. While the wheels of justice do grind slowly, in this case I foresee them crushing the state of California’s gun control ambitions. Watch this space.