Author: Bear

In my recent column about the Ninth Circuit panel ruling on JONES v. BONTA, I addressed the dissent in the case. I have a question about how dissents are usually published in the Ninth. Not being an attorney, much less practicing on the other side on the continent, I’m a little clueless on this.

With SCOTUS decisions, I generally see any dissent written separately, but published with the majority ruling.

But in JONES v. BONTA I noticed that Judge Stein’s dissent was included within the majority decision, not separately.

Is this standard procedure in the Ninth?

If not, I kind of wonder if this is an attempt by the panel majority to force the en banc Court to specifically address the — bizarre, to my way of thinking — dissent, if the Court takes it up on appeal. I confess, I’d like to think that.

Scrutinizing JONES v. BONTA
The big news in American human/civil rights today is JONES vs. BONTA, overturning the California ban on long guns for 10-20 year-olds.

To hear from a lot of “news” outlets this morning, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the ban. Most headlines read that way, and many even continue that into the reports themselves. A few correctly point out that the ruling came from a three judge panel of the Ninth, rather than the whole circuit. That’s pretty important, for reasons beyond the obvious option for appeal.
[Read more]

The devil in the appeal is in the details. Specifically, the dissent in the panel’s ruling.

Those protesters at SCOTUS Justice Alito’s home? Not to worry. VA Gov. Youngkin is on the job.

We have been coordinating with @FairfaxCountyPD, @VSPPIO, and federal authorities to ensure that there isn’t violence. Virginia State Police were closely monitoring, fully coordinated with Fairfax County and near the protests.

Since you’re only going to monitor the attempted intimidation of a Supreme Court Justice, something that violates both federal and state law, I was just wondering…

Is there a dollar threshold at below which you’ll merely “monitor” bank robberies?

Asking for a friend.

CALIFORNIA RED FLAG LAW DOESN’T WORK
You might think that headline is the big news. Not really. We already know red flag laws don’t work.

The news here is that Garen Wintemute, the victim-disarmament advocate who previously couldn’t find data he could not twist, finally hit a brick wall. And worse.
[Read more]

Yep, looks like the study was manipulated to hide the fact that the red flag law seemed to make things worse. Just like happened in Florida.

…means no one is allowed to choose not to have an abortion.

Pro-Life Group’s Office Firebombed in Madison, Wisconsin
The office of the pro-life PAC Wisconsin Family Action located in Madison was firebombed early Sunday morning. Police report at least one Molotov Cocktail was used. No injuries were reported in the 6 a.m. attack, however there are photos showing fire damage furniture and books inside and outside the office. Graffiti was spray-painted on an exterior wall with the message, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either,” as well as as well as

But wait, there’s more.

an anarchist “A” symbol

Anarchists demanding laws protecting abortion (and apparently outlawing… birth)?

The morons of “Ruth Sent Us” plan to strike again. Where “strike” means Look at me; I’m an idiot!

Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer.

We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying.

We’ll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries.

If they get their hands on Eucharist, I expect some parishoners will have harsh words for a priest or two.

More likely these dumbasses will run down to a religious supply store and buy a bag of unconsecrated, unleavened wafers. If they want to burn their money, go for it.

But… let’s say have have consecrated Eucharist. And burn ’em.

Maybe they should torch a Koran or two while they’re at it, and see which intolerant religious group goes for their heads first.

18 U.S. Code § 1507 – Picketing or parading
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

Funny how that doesn’t work.

I’ve set — and then broke — some new traffic records for the blog this weekend.

Welcome, new readers. I encourage to stick around, and not just be one-timers. I’ll try to keep you entertained, informed, and intrigued.

My first thought on seeing this report was, “Do they expect that to convince…”

Then I came to a full stop.

WATCH: Pro-abortion protestors put on grotesque display at Catholic Church

One attendee in particular, dressed in what appeared to be a one-piece bathing suit, walked up to the men praying and screamed in their faces. She also waved around a plastic baby doll with a pink cloth tied around its neck.
“I’m killing the mother f&cking baby,” she yelled, strangling the doll.

They don’t expect to convince anyone of the righteousness of abortion. They intend to provoke.

Provoke what?

This.

CNN: Capitol Police ‘Warning the Far Right Is Calling for Violence’ after Supreme Court Leak

Yeah: Bullshit.

If the leak is really indicative of how the Court will rule, the “Right,” the anti-abortion people, have no reason to do that. They’d have won.

And the pro-abortion side knows it. So they have to provoke the “predicted” violence; the better to demonize pro-lifers.

Happily, the good people in New York didn’t fall for it.

More and more, it’s getting harder to tell parody from… someone being serious. Latest case in point: this gun ammunition control LtE.

Letter — Control ammunition to control guns
Automatic weapons with performance very similar to the AR15 have been known since a patent was issued to Remington in about 1918. See: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_device)

That’s factually wrong on so many points.

• automatic weapons similar in performance to the semi-auto AR-15
• machine guns since 1918??
• the Pedersen device was a machine gun???

Full auto differs greatly from semi-auto.

Pinning down the “first” machine gun is tricky, given the gradual evolution of firearm firing multiple rounds at a time… since the 16th century at least. Probably the first practical, commercial machine gun was the Maxim Gun in 1884, not decades later in 1918.

The Pedersen device? A semi-auto conversion for the Springfield ’03. Not a machine gun even by the most warped ATF decision.

At this point, Mr. Ligon pulled out his shovel and started digging.

But really the problem is that it’s not actually a matter of controlling the guns. Guns do nothing without ammunition. But the government seems to have no interest in controlling ammunition.

Ah! We don’t need gun control; we just need to control ammunition (which magically isn’t gun control. Oh. Wait…

If you fix things so that if you have all guns registered then in order to buy ammunition you need to produce this registration.

I’m pretty effin’ sure universal firearm/owner registration is gun control. (And will Ligon volunteer to canvas the ‘hoods to register gangbangers’ unlawfully possessed firearms?)

Forget the shovel. Pickaxe? Nah. Ligon goes full backhoe.

I suggested many years ago that we tag our ammunition with compounds that produce very strong odors and are not dangerous themselves. Such compounds exist but no one chooses to use them. If such materials were used we would know when someone was using “legal” ammunition, If you did not use legal ammunition you could be arrested.

Lemme wrap my head around this. Legal ammo would stink. Illegal ammo would not. Ammo that doesn’t stink would be probable cause for arrest.

So… presumably walking around with no firearm visible (presumed conceal carry) without stinking would be probably cause as well.

Gonna be a bitch for the nonputrescent noncarriers getting busted left and right.

He even tosses in the semi- (or is that full-) obligatory Public Broadcasting Service reference, so you’ll know where he gets his reliable data.

This either near-masterful parody of an ignorant victim-disarmer, or the real thing. I can no longer reliably tell the difference.