Thursday, January 11, 2018

Oral arguments at 2C in Robinson vs. Sessions Posted by Paloma Capanna on Jan 9, 2018 in Blog, Featured

Never ceases to amaze me the questions judges ask. bpb

oral-arguments-at-2c-in-robinson-vs-sessions/

I'll paste Paloma A. Cappana's short report but please go listen to and read the arguments.

On Monday, January 8, 2018, I presented oral arguments at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Robinson vs. Sessions (docket 17-1427).

Court was held in New York City at a building that is at once formidable and foreboding.  Massive stone columns and steps lead to its metal front door of the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse.  Once past security, my shoes echoed loudly in the marble-veined lobby that is void of people and furniture.  The landing of the 17th floor contained a couple of benches, but was otherwise ringed tight with windowless doors that gave no clue what went on behind them.  The only welcoming detail was the ceiling decoration of flowers in plaster relief technique.

Presiding were Judges Jacobs, Hall, and Raggi.  Two men, born and raised in NYC.  One woman, like me, born in New Jersey and women’s college educated.  The Slate in 2005 suggested Raggi might be on the short list of potential SCOTUS nominees.

Robinson vs. Sessions was called as the third case of the five cases argued.  We stayed to observe the subsequent cases.  Orals in the other four cases were more formal and focused on the facts, excepting one female lawyer pounding a favorable SCOTUS decision handed down after the briefs had been submitted in this intermediate appellate court.  Unlike my extensive experience before the New York State Appellate Division Forth Department, there was no lightness or humor.  The judges in NYC did not express any identifiable recognition of any attorney as being a familiar colleague.  There was no casual banter.

Second Circuit Courtroom 1703Oral arguments in Robinson vs Sessions resembled the oral arguments and decisions I have been experiencing these past five years in federal court.  Unfortunately, two things occurred.  First, questions had little to do with the pending case.  Second, questions were poorly framed by the judges because of their own lack of familiarity with this area of the law.

The first question came promptly from Judge Hall, who wanted to know how it could happen that NICS did not contain the disqualifying records of a man dishonorably discharged from the military, referencing the recent homicide committed by one Devin Kelley that is the subject of the pending litigation in City of New York, et al. vs. US Dep’t. of Defense, et al.  (For the statutory analysis concerning that topic and that case, refer to my recent blog on point.)

Judge Raggi’s questions followed and were erroneously premised that the disqualifying factors under 18 USC §922(g)(1)-(9) do not have an associated due process component.  I selected one, specifically (g)(4), to explain its due process requirements set out in the implementing regulations found at 27 CFR §498.11, but her facial expression went blank when I explained that the mental health disqualifier mandates an involuntary commitment pursuant to court order.

Back to Judge Hall, who didn’t know that federal and state agency record submissions to NICS is voluntary (not mandatory).  He evidenced no comprehension of the mechanics of how the ATF Form 4473 is used in the FFL setting, how the customer fills it out under oath, how an FFL runs the interface with the ATF, and so forth.  And on.

You can listen to the oral arguments for yourself.

Few of yesterday’s questions from the three judges had anything to do with Robinson vs. Sessions.  Instead, the questions had everything to do with the misinformation – intentional or not – pounded into the American public by every mainstream media outlet in the country.

The dynamics I experienced with the three judges is that which I experience every time I talk to reporters and before an audience.  It reflected the myriad of questions that you throw at me every day through lengthy voicemails, e-mails, and FB messages.  I might do my best to try to speak about one sub-topic at a time, but what comes at me is pure chaos.  The average person – and the average judge is no different – is too hyped on hysteria to organize a cogent question or participate in a two-way conversation.

What is it that I am saying that makes everyone, including you, so off-put?

The law as it stands.

If you’re pro gun control, you don’t want me to provide a clear explanation that a legal outcome was correct on the law when you are looking at a dead body and a smoking gun.  Those folks say the laws and the constitution be damned, do whatever it takes to get guns off the street.

If you’re pro Second Amendment, you don’t want me to provide a clear explanation that a legal outcome  is correct on the law when a defendant is put behind bars and firearms are confiscated.  You folks say the law be damned; I’m not going to follow it.

Nobody wants to hear me say, “Your concerns are appropriately addressed to Congress.”

And so I become the messenger that gets shot in the crossfire of political discontent.

My commentary on oral arguments is that if the Second Amendment is to become the modern civil rights movement that it deserves, you’re going to have to address at least two things.  Number one (the easier), you are going to have to become public relations experts on trending Second Amendment topics.  Seriously and consistently invest your time in monitoring mainstream media.  Where you spot errors or quotes without a response from the right, you must contact reporters and editors to set the record straight in a timely and professional manner.

Second, you need to start pounding the pavement to recruit lawyers to represent litigants on these critical civil rights issues.  Lawyers educate judges in every well-researched and presented case.  The federal bench is operating at only the most basic level concerning firearms law.  I can’t do it alone.  Start knocking on doors and going to law schools and actively recruit lawyers.  I’m no fool; I know lawyers don’t want my cases because I’m not getting paid and neither will they.  Gang, you’re going to have to get organized and raise the serious money necessary to get the attention of lawyers and/or you’re going to have to create your own ACLU-like foundation.  The Brady Center did.

As soon as the decision is issued by the Second Circuit, I’ll let you know.  For now, you have the Briefs and the oral arguments.

We can do this.  Ultimately, we will prevail.  We’re right on the facts and we’re right on the law.

But, if we’re going to effectively fight and win in our lifetime, then everyone is going to have to get off the sidelines and get actively involved.  The Second Amendment is a heavy lift and right now our civil rights are treading water in the Hudson.

Friday, December 15, 2017

Firearms Owners & the Mental Health Scam

Run this plan.
You know how the mental health system or medical community is always on some sort or mission to raise awareness for a specific illness. Well, I was thinking of the past media blitz on mental health and the need for more of our tax dollars to fund the medical system. How much are you willing to bet that much of the mental health reporting for firearms owners is a ruse to get government to fund more pork I.E. junk research in the medical community.

With very little going to the actual patients. I bet if we could get a look into the medical lobbyist emails and letters we'd find a direct link to them lobbying Albany for funds to support them. Just like the other anti groups have done. It's all to similar.

So ask your legislators who in the medical community has been in to speak for support for mental health issues & mentioned guns in the same meeting.

If the government can't get you in the system as a criminal. A mental health problem will do just as well.

It all boils down to control of your life & wallet.

 With the government and crooked politicians either one will do to break you.  Why would a politician and those in jobs the need our tax dollars care if you were made a criminal, as long as they collected a pay check and co-pays from you?

Really why would they care if your life is ruined?

They don't , and the sooner some of you wake up from that coma the better off you'll be.

Like I've written in the past. "you're already a criminal, you just have't been arrested yet".

Friday, December 8, 2017

Civiqis Survey in the mornings email. Can't post to FaceBook??

So every few weeks I get these surveys most of the time they ask how President Trump is doing. Today was a featured event on 7 of the turds in office.  Odd thing is when I attempted to post this on my FB wall it stalled out and had a "loading" ticker at the top of the post. Hummm   Bill

1 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Mitch McConnell? Change Answer
 Unfavorable
2 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Joe Biden? Change Answer
 Unfavorable
3 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Kamala Harris? Change Answer
 Unfavorable
4 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Cory Booker? Change Answer
 Unfavorable
5 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Kirsten Gillibrand? Change Answer
 Unfavorable
6 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Andrew Cuomo? Change Answer
 Unfavorable
7 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Terry McAuliffe? Change Answer
 Unfavorable
8 To ensure that our survey represents all Americans, can you tell us your city and state? Change Answer

Hull Georgia
You're all done and your responses have been submitted. Thank you!
Civiqs is an independent opinion research company that helps politicians, p

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

THE SAFE ACT MAY NOT BE SO SAFE by Budd Schroeder

Budd is past NRA Director and founding member of SCOPE inc in Upstate NY

THE RIGHT SIDE
BY BUDD SCHROEDER
DECEMBER  6, 2017

                         THE SAFE ACT MAY NOT BE SO SAFE

The SAFE Act in New York is one of the worst pieces of gun control laws in America.  It was rammed through the legislature with a “message of necessity.”  It prevented reasonable debate and a chance for people outside the legislative chambers to make comments regarding certain provisions .

The assemblymen and senators never had a proper chance to read the law and discuss it with experts in the field of law enforcement,  mental health or constitutional law.  The flaws showed up early.  For example, as the law was passed, one of the provisions was that a magazine for pistols and rifles could hold no more than seven rounds.  The legislators were so dumb, they did not exempt law enforcement and that was quickly brought to their attention.  Typical law enforcement agencies have weapons that use magazines that hold fifteen or more rounds.  It had to be quickly amended.

Then, it was discovered that most semi-automatic pistols came with ten round magazines and  manufacturers didn’t make magazines holding only seven rounds.  So. the legislators told the public that they could have a ten round magazine, but it would be a crime to put more than seven rounds in the magazine.   One Second Amendment activist had two magazines, each holding nine rounds.  He would put seven rounds in each magazine and tell his audience that he was a compliant citizen, but if he removed a cartridge from one of the magazines and put it in the other he could be arrested as a criminal.  That is the mentality of the anti-gun politicians.

That provision was ended by  a federal court where the judge called the seven round limit arbitrary and said that a ten round magazine could be loaded with ten rounds.  That was, and is, the law. Mere possession of a magazine that holds more than ten rounds is a felony.  If the person has only the magazine and no gun, he is still charged with a felony.  How that reduces the criminal misuse of firearms is still a mystery to most.

Along with the limit on magazines, the law bans the so called “assault weapons.”  The anti-gun crowd has conned the public into believing a semi-auto rifle with certain features  like a pistol grip, flash suppressor, adjustable stock, or a threaded barrel is  an assault rifle.  A proper definition of an assault rifle means it has a selector switch that can change it to a machine gun.  The semi-automatic rifle fires one round with each squeeze of the trigger, like a double action revolver.

The law allowed those who had a rifle with those features were allowed to keep it by registering it with the State Police.  It could never be sold or passed on to another person.   Some of the banned rifles could be modified to make them legal.  For example the M1 A could be made legal without registering it by having the threads ground off the barrel. It prevented the attachment of a flash suppressor and grenade launcher. "Stupid is as stupid does." said Forrest Gump 
The law was passed as a “matter of necessity” in 2013, but it contains a provision for recertification of pistol permits every five years.  The pistol permits have been issued as good until revoked, but now, they have to be re-registered with the State Police every five years.  This means that a person with the permit they may have had for decades now has to be recertified with the State Police.
When a person registers a gun at the county pistol permit department, the agency forwards the information to the State Police and put on record.  Perhaps there have been incidents where there was a foul up between the agencies and they are not the same.  Anyway, all people who have a permit issued before 2013 have to send the data on their pistol permit to the State Police before January 31, 2018.
Failure to comply means that the person will be in non-compliance with the law and their pistol permit is not valid anymore.  It also means that they are illegally in possession of a handgun and that is a felony which has a penalty of at least seven years in prison.  A person who has been an outstanding citizen for decades, without that piece of paper (permit), is now a criminal.

This issue has become newsworthy and people are not complying as the politicians hoped.  There is a lot of resistance and many are holding off to the last month to make it more difficult for the State Police to record the sent records.  Some are doing it on line which makes it easy for the officers to switch it to their data base. Many gun owners don’t want to make it easy.
Most of the people who are familiar with Second Amendment issues are reminded that historically, registration is the first step to confiscation of guns. This would make the confiscation more convenient for government to do.

Some are concerned that this is a process that could lead to the registration of all guns.This is already done in New York City and what New York City wants, they usually get.  The passage of the SAFE Act is positive proof of it. It would be easy for the State Police to do. They could do this just by checking who has a hunting license. It is reasonable to believe that the person would have at least one gun.

A letter could go out to all the hunters and that would be a large number.  That could be a huge data base and would not be surprising that the state would like to have the information.  A former governor had great disdain for hunters.  One of his famous quotes went something like:  “They don’t vote, drink beer and lie to their wives where they have been on the weekend.”  His son, Andrew Cuomo, is the apple that didn't fall far from the tree.

With all those guns registered, what would be the next logical step for the crooked politicians to seriously consider?  Of course, tax them! That also is done in New York City and should be a real concern to upstate gun owners.  We know the power to tax is the power to destroy and the NYC mentality says the fewer number of guns, the better.
This is a serious issue and with the state elections next year this could be a problem for incumbents.  The pro-gun groups are getting stronger because this is the type of law that will get formerly apathetic gun owners who didn’t vote in the last state election, to be angry enough to protect their rights.  The  Second Amendment movement is gaining momentum and the recertification is fuel to the fire.
                                                                -30-
             

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

For Sale: SOLD Lyman Stock used Right Hand Percussion

Ebay link for Lyman Stock

This is cross posted for sale on several sites. Price for those forums is listed in that forum.






This is a non firing component listing for stock and parts.

The inlet barrel area is .970+- a few ths. across. Measurement varies slightly from .960 to ,970.  All stock hardware is included in this auction.

  Triggers, percussion lock, wedge pin,lock screw and washer,trigger guard,double set trigger group,brass nose cap and butt plate,escutcheons.

  No ramrod~

Manufacture date appx 1980

Stock has a few bumps and dings nothing outstanding. No cracks were noticed during inspection.
  Stock is numbered  737

Auction price reflects separate components purchased price at a discount and all listing fees.

BPBReloading is a licensed and registered business in Georgia. Veteran owned in business over 30 years.

Payment expected as soon as auction is won. This will be a fixed price auction.

Shipping is extra appx $25.00 to lower 48.

Thanks for looking

Regards BlackPowderBill


Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Petersburg Landing Ltjg Bobby Brown Park Elberton GA

BlackPowderBill speaking on early settler living to Middle School children from Elbert county Ga.


Making first fire in the camp using fling & steel


Monday, November 13, 2017

WILL RIGHTS BE KEPT OR LOST NEXT YEAR? by Budd Schroder

THE RIGHT SIDE
BY BUDD SCHROEDER
NOVEMBER 15, 2017

             WILL RIGHTS BE KEPT OR LOST NEXT YEAR?

          As we would expect, when a mass shooting is committed by an evil person, the media and liberal left cries for more gun control.  What is interesting about this case is that the killer bought his guns after passing background checks.
          This should not have happened because of the past history of the murderer, who had numerous interactions with the military and the law. This should have made him ineligible to purchase firearms.  Unfortunately, the government fouled up both in the military and civilian arena.
          The killer received a Bad Conduct Discharge from the Air Force, and his penchant for domestic violence got him in trouble while in the military and with local law enforcement.  He served time in prison, yet with all of these violations, was not reported to the FBI and placed in the NICS data base.
          Compare this with New York and the SAFE Act where people who are falsely reported are automatically placed on the NICS data base and they are unable to legally buy or possess guns.  Go figure.
          Predictably, the liberal leftist politicians are calling for more gun control laws.  Some want a law that would call for an ex parte confiscation of firearms like the Lautenberg Law that requires people who may have had a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence to lose their Second Amendment rights.
          This is a federal law, yet a bill in the NY Assembly has been submitted that would do the same thing with a mandate attached to require law enforcement to confiscate the guns even if the officers decide that there is no danger to the people involved.
          A person may have had the conviction before the law was passed and may have purchased a gun legally at the time.  However if it was recently discovered that if by some quirk in the law requiring a background check, like for employment, and it showed the misdemeanor conviction, all of a sudden, he is required to turn in all his guns because he is not eligible to possess a gun.
          He might have gotten the misdemeanor conviction by bad advice from his lawyer.  Let’s say that he had an argument and he asked for a divorce.  His wife wanted to hurt him so she accused him of a violent act and the police were called.  They took the report and he is charged with domestic abuse.
          Now, he is faced with an expensive court case, so the lawyer suggested that he save several thousand dollars by pleading to a misdemeanor which could end up in an affordable fine and a reasonable legal fee.  So, that is what he did.
          He was a fine, outstanding citizen after the divorce, forgot about the incident and went on with his life until the misdemeanor showed up in his record. Now, his property has been confiscated and he has little chance of getting it back.  An honest citizen is turned into a person who has lost a constitutional right because of this law.
          It is thought by many that the liberal left is looking for every opportunity to make gun ownership difficult for all citizens.  We know that only about one quarter of one per cent of American gun owners misuse their guns. The proper way to deal with the problem is to deal with the cause.  It is not guns that cause the mass murders.  They may be a tool used by evil or deranged people.
We think of Timothy McVeigh who killed three times as many people as Pollock in Las Vegas by using a truck with a bomb made of fertilizer and fuel oil. We have to be convinced that the only real common factor in any mass murder is the person doing it.
          If all guns could be confiscated we would still have mass murders.  This was shown recently by the terrorist in New York City using a rented truck and mowing down people in a bike path.
          It is easy to obtain a vehicle.  No background checks outside of credit checks.  A driver’s license is necessary and once the finances are approved the guy drives a vehicle.  If he doesn’t have money, how hard is it to steal a car?
          The liberal news media is also for confiscating guns and looking for any reason to do so.  They don’t care that the person may not know they are in violation of any laws until the police come knocking on the door with an order to take all firearms from the person.  In a family home, they may remove the guns owned by other family members.
          Then there is a huge problem getting them back.  The “due process” can take years, require legal assistance and reduce the family bank account.  The SAFE Act is a good example of that, too.
          People have had their constitutional and civil rights violated by false reports by hospitals who can report a person as involuntarily admitted when the person came in totally voluntarily. If the report was made as an involuntary admission, it goes to the Office Of Mental Health. From there it goes through a series of bureaucracies and ends up at the County Clerk’s Office in Upstate New York if the person has a pistol permit.
          The accused person must surrender his pistol permit and all his guns, including rifles and shotguns.  There is no hearing or due process connected with this law. When this happens, the state gives the FBI  a reason to add that name to their NICS base.
          Then, the accused person is considered guilty and he or she has to hire an attorney to start a process to investigate the false report to prove innocence.  If successful and the aggrieved person wins, they get an order for the return of their suspended pistol permit and the handguns.  The long guns are not returned,
          In order to get the rifles and shotguns returned, the person must  file an Article 78 to a Supreme Court Judge and needs the assistance of an attorney.  The costs involved can be more than the value of the guns, so the person has the loss of property without compensation.
          The anti-gun politicians are happy to see this happen and look for more ways to confiscate guns from honest people.  Since criminals don’t obey laws, they passed one that will be obeyed.  They like this idea.
          The politicians will submit such laws and the liberal left will write editorials supporting these infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.
In New York, assemblymen, senators and governor will be running for office next year.  For those who believe in constitutional law, the right to keep and bear arms, property rights, due process and fairness in law will have the opportunity to vote for the politicians who agree with them.  We get the government we deserve.  What do you deserve?
                                      -30-