About that unconstitutional California mag ban

California, as expected, has asked for a stay of Judge Benitez’ ruling pending appeal.

all four factors considered in such a stay request are satisfied. See Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Gutierrez , 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A party seeking a stay must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, [3] that the balance of equities tip in his favor, and [4] that a stay is in the public interest.”

1. No way in hell Benitez will see them as likely to win.

2. Becerra suffers no harm from innocent people buying standard capacity mags.

3. Eh?

4. Benitez already made the point that the ban was not in the public interest.

This is all set up for the appeal.

until the Judgment is stayed pending appeal, individuals will be free to acquire new LCMs, and there is evidence that sales have begun already. If Section 32310 is ultimately reinstated by the Ninth Circuit, it will be difficult for the State to remove these new LCMs.

Yep. Just like they are incapable of confiscating once-lawfully owned firearms when they even know who has what where. Unregistered mags? Ain’t happening.

How Many Bump-Fire Stocks WERE at Mandalay Bay?

David Codrea‘s ATF FOIA request on bump-fire stocks has generated something that puzzles me.

The ATF FOIA dump includes this on page 36.

12 of the .223 AR-type firearms are equipped with a type of “slide-fire” or “bump-fire” device capable of simulating automatic fire (see attached photos).

That number is odd because when you go to the LVMPD Final Investigative Report you get a differing number.

14. Not 12. Somehow, LVMPD came up with two more bump-fire stocks than the ATF reported. And yet, both ATF and LVMPD came up with the same overall count: 22 AR-type (-15 and -10), 1 bolt-action, and 1 revolver; 24 total.

Of course, this isn’t the only discrepancy in weapon-type counts. The Wall Street Journal, Daily Mail, and other outlets reported that the shooter had at least one converted fully automatic rifle in addition to the bump-fire stocked firearms. Per the Daily Mail on October 3, 2017:

Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo said on Monday it wasn’t clear whether the full-auto gun was modified, or if it was originally made that way.

and

“…full-auto assault rifles…”

more

“At least one of those was automatic, while another two had been modified with legal bump-stock devices…”

Fast forward to the FIP of Aust 3, 2018, and the machineguns have disappeared from the narrative, while two extra bump-fire stocked weapons appear.

Make of it what you will. I just find it odd. And even odder, per the FOIA dump, that the ATF, responsible for NFA items like full-auto assault rifles, was not allowed to examine any of the shooter’s weapons.

Destiny’d for Mediocrity

Tracking incompetence at Jacksonville’s WJXT News4Jax has become something of a hobby. In between errands and analyzing the latest judicial attack on America, I’ve been looking into this.

Former military man arrested after SWAT situation in Oakleaf
ORANGE PARK, Fla. – A former military man was arrested…
[…]
News4Jax learned that Ransford is former military, so deputies said they came in with knowledge of that and they approached the situation knowing Ransford had more training with weapons than the average citizen.

I wondered about the emphasis on “former military,” especially since the article makes no mention of the guy possessing or using weapons, nor any other red flag beyond the alleged crimes. So I asked WJXT’s Destiny McKeiver. Her response?

No emphasis. Just a mention that came from the sheriff’s office, which is fair to include.

“No emphasis.” Just headline, first sentence, and further expansion.

13.5% of Florida’s population is “former military,” veterans. Given the usual gender ratios, that’s probably at least 1 in 4 Florida men who are veterans. It isn’t exactly uncommon. And yet, for no other reason given — and that’s what I was asking for; some reason that his veteran status was pertinent — the Clay County Sheriff’s Office felt their SWAT team had to be extra careful. Is the CCSO going to automatically roll SWAT any time they expect a veteran? For no other reason than that?

McKeiver doesn’t know, doesn’t care.

You have to ask @ccsofl.

I sort of thought that since she’s being paid to cover the story, and has the CCSO contact, she might be interested in following up on a troubling point. Since she isn’t — doing more than transcribing press releases being beyond her skillset — I’ll just shuffle off and do her job for her.

I’ll update this post if I get an answer.

Bump-Fire Ban: Protecting Yourself

With the “bump stocks = machineguns” ban now in effect, folks are looking for legal cover. For instance, the Virgina Citizens Defense League has suggested:

1. One of the other groups fighting the ban, the Firearms Policy Foundation, got the DC Circuit Court to apply a stay to their members only. The good news is that you can join the Firearms Policy Foundation for as little as $1 and be covered by their blanket stay.

Some points about that:

  1. The stay order referred to ‘current’ members. That may limit it to those were already members at the time the order was issued. Frankly, the court would have to clarify that.
  2. There is some case law that limits groups extending memberships. If you had donated/joined prior to this, you may be covered. But still don’t count on it.
  3. Whether a member or not Firearms Policy Coalition is working their asses off on your behalf. Donate. They’re trying to protect you, member or not.

While I am pessimistic about the outcome, the Guedes et al case (along with several others) are far from over. The latest unfavorable decision from the SCOTUS was only about a stay pending a preliminary injunction pending an actual ruling on the merits of the case. Either way the ruling eventually goes, it is likely to be appealed by our side or the government.

In short, there’s still a long battle to fight. I know FPC is willing to take this to the Supreme Court, if necessary, but that takes a lot of work from attorneys who need to be paid (attorneys need to eat and pay bills, too). Without you and me kicking in, their resources will be strained.

DONATE TO FPC NOW 

You can also help by spreading the word. Or maybe you have useful research skills. Let them know you’re willing to help. Because you are, right?

For your rights?

FPC is helping you. Help them to do that.

And if the VNRA asks your help… just remember those bastards caused this.

Lying Editors: Misleading the Public on ex parte “Red Flag” Laws

What a piece of crapaganda. I could write an LtE in rebuttal, but I can tell it wouldn’t get published by these weasels; they clearly have a vested interest in concealing the truth. I can do a better job here. And probably get more readers.

Our View: ‘Red flag’ laws work to prevent suicide
Red flag laws have gained popularity since the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, last year. The shooter in that case had exhibited troubling behavior in the time leading up to shooting, but there were no mechanisms in the law for cutting off his access to guns.

And here we go. There were multiple mechanisms in place. The scumsucker could have been arrested and charged for any of his reported crimes. Said allegations included destruction of property, killing animals, and death threats; and that was just at home, with at least 40 reported responses by law enforcement.

He could have been reported by his school, where he had a history going back to at least middle school of destruction of property and assault. The school declined to have him arrested, preferring to pretend his violence didn’t exceed the thresholds of their diversion program (which it did).

He could have been Baker Acted. They specifically opted not to do that.

He could have been investigated and arrested by local law enforcement and the FBI, both of which had received multiple (are you seeing a trend here?) credible reports that he intended to shoot up his school.

On the day of the shooting, the assigned school monitors and on-site deputy could have stopped him. They chose to hide.

If no one will do their jobs, all the laws in the world won’t help.

Moving on:

In order to confiscate someone’s firearms, however, family members or police must convince a judge that there is probable cause that there is an “immediate and present danger” that the person will cause bodily harm to themselves or others.

If the judge rules that there is probably cause, the firearms are then confiscated. However, a hearing must be held within 14 days among all parties.

Note the bait and switch. If you were ignorant of red flag laws, you could easily get the impression that the hearing, held within 14 days, comes before the theft of firearms. It doesn’t.

Here’s how it really works: Anonymous snitch makes claim. Judge rubber stamps order same day without even letting the accused know there’s an accusation, much less hearing his side. Cops confiscate guns, that being the first time the accused knows anything is going on. Human/civil rights violated in a no-due process ex parte star chamber secret proceeding.

Opposition to red flag laws in Maine has largely come from sportsmen’s groups and gun-rights advocates. They say such laws take away a person’s right to due process and open the way for people to file false claims by way of revenge or retaliation.

Damned right we do. Perhaps the Editorial Board is unaware that due process is defined in federal law and red flag ex parte proceedings violate living hell out of it.

That was merely misleading. This part is an outright lie:

That is hardly any different from a protection-from-abuse order, which is created through largely the same process, and allows a judge to restrict who someone can talk to and where they can go.

No, it is extremely different. A protection-from-abuse order is issued after a hearing in which both parties are notified in advance and have the opportunity to give their side of the story, and can have legal counsel.

The very point of a red flag order is to not give the accused victim any notice; it’s supposed to be a surprise, and he won’t know who did it to him until he finally gets his day in court. Weeks after the fact.

And the orders are not given out capriciously – they are the result of a process with checks and balances that can suss out false claims.

There are no checks and balances in most versions of ex parte red flag laws. Proposed amendments to provide penalties for making a false claim to the judge have almost always been voted down. The order is issued the same day the petition is filed, with no time to “suss out false claims.”

This version has nothing more that a requirement that the court inform the petitioner snitch “that it is a crime to make a false statement under oath in a court document.” That’s easy to get around, since it isn’t a false report of something allegedly happening, like a real crime; the snitch must merely claim, “Well, I really did feel that something bad could happen.”

Disprove feelz. After the fact. Go ahead, try.

Red flag laws don’t trample on rights.

Red flag laws don their hobnailed jackboots and stomp human/civil rights into formless paste. Bloody paste.

They are not a shadow “gun grab.”

What else do you call anonymous claims behind the victim’s back, in secrecy’s shadow?

Every single state in the country already has constitutionally-vetted laws that allow for a potentially dangerous person (to self or others) to be briefly (generally a max of 72 hours during which the person is allowed outside contact) taken into custody for evaluation, during which time he has no access to weapons. All red flag laws do is strip away the rights to representation, and impose restrictions of rights for weeks without recourse.

While leaving the allegedly danger person on the loose. Without any evaluation.

This is probably the most complete collection of deception, prevarication, bait & switch, and snide innuendo in support of the evil of ex parte red flag laws which I’ve encountered to date. The Portland Press Herald should be ashamed of themselves and make a public apology for their crimes against journalism and humanity.