Winning in California, or at least less losing…

This is the ex-Kamala Harris-run CA DOJ, the DC Democrat’s new darling-hopeful (right up there with the newly crowned Communist-Democrat from “the Bronx”), that again is shown to be a corrupt AND inept tool of the Bureaucratic Uni-Party in that despicable hive of scum and villainy known as Sacramento.

Less than two months ago, the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms (“CA DOJ”) formally submitted a proposed regulation expanding the application of its improperly adopted “assault weapon” definitions to apply in all circumstances. The Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) was scheduled to decide whether to approve the regulation yesterday. Following opposition submitted by the CRPA & NRA legal team, CA DOJ officially withdrew its proposed regulation the day before OAL was scheduled to make its decision.
This isn’t the first time CA DOJ has withdrawn a proposed regulation. It was previously forced to withdraw its illegal “assault weapon” registration regulations following NRA and CRPA’s joint-opposition, regulations which were later officially rejected by OAL.
Those regulations are now the subject of a lawsuit titled Villanueva v. Becerra, which challenges the regulations as a violation of California’s Administrative Procedures Act and will soon be briefed before the California Court of Appeal.
This latest withdrawal of a proposed regulation expanding the application of DOJ’s illegally adopted regulations is welcome news for all California gun owners. At the very least, the withdraw shows CA DOJ does not get a free pass to adopt regulations outside the scope of its authority.

Gunbloggers Win II!

Uncle alerts us, and David Hardy says: We all know it’s going to appeal, but the government wanted to proceed in its usual way (pondering everything, with meetings and exchange of memos and alerting 10,000 people before officially reaching the only obvious conclusion, hey, I used to be a GS-14 and know the ropes). The judge said, no way, you’ll meet the deadline imposed on every other case.
And John Richardson adds depth to the CCRKBA release with, The Justice Department had requested a 60-day stay in Mance v. Holder. They had requested the stay while they decided whether or not to appeal the case.

This is the case that overturned that part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that banned the purchase and immediate transfer of handguns by FFLs to out of state purchasers. Today, Judge Reed O’Connor denied the government’s request for a stay.
Mance v. Holder – Government Requested Stay Denied

From CCRKBA’s release:


Monday, March 2nd, 2015

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal court in Texas has denied a government motion for a 60-day stay in a case involving interstate handgun transfers in which the judge applied strict scrutiny to determine whether a ban on such transfers meets constitutional muster.

The case, known as Mance v. Holder, was filed by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and is financially supported by the Second Amendment Foundation. It involves plaintiffs residing in Texas and the District of Columbia, and the ruling last month by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, found that “the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is unconstitutional on its face.”

The government had asked for a 60-day stay in order to decide whether to file an appeal. But Judge O’Connor ruled today that a stay is not warranted because the government could offer no other reasons for its request other than the court’s “inherent authority to manage its docket.”

“We’re delighted that Judge O’Connor is not going to simply allow the government to stall this ruling,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “This case could have significant ramifications nationwide, and allowing a two-month stay while the government essentially claims it will be thinking about whether to appeal obviously was not warranted.”

CCRKBA and the individual plaintiffs are represented by Virginia attorney Alan Gura and Texas attorney William B. “Bill” Mateja of Fish & Richardson in Dallas.

The Empire Strikes Back

Update from Rick.
Our Overlords and Masters decline to agree with Liberty and the Constitution. Motion for 60 Day Stay in Mance v Holder It seems the Government is determined to fight against protecting our Civil Rights under the Constitution.
What is it about, “Justice delayed is Justice denied?” The wheels of Gov. and Bureaucracy grind slowly and inexorably when it suits them, but swiftly when the takings are ripe.



Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-00539-O


Defendants respectfully move for a stay of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 11, 2015 [ECF No. 40] for 60 days, in order to allow adequate time for the government to determine whether to appeal the Court’s decision and, if so, whether to seek a stay pending appeal. The determination whether to appeal is entrusted by regulation to the Solicitor General of the United States.

See 28 C.F.R. § 0.20(b). The 60 days requested represents a modest amount of time for the Solicitor General to determine whether to appeal, after consultation with the affected governmental components.

See also 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b) (allowing 60 days for filing a notice of appeal when the federal government is a party). No undue prejudice will result to Plaintiffs from the short stay requested, as evidenced by the fact that Plaintiffs have not sought preliminary injunctive relief in this case. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully urge the Court to enter an order that stays the provisions of its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 11, 2015 for 60 days, until April 14, 2015. A proposed order is being submitted electronically in Word Perfect-compatible format to the Court’s “Orders” email address.

Dated: February 13, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
JOYCE R. BRANDA Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOHN R. PARKER Acting United States Attorney /s/ Daniel Riess DIANE KELLEHER Assistant Branch Director
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division,
Rm. 6122 20 Massachusetts Avenue,
NW Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 353-3098
Fax: (202) 616-8470
Attorneys for Defendants


Sometime between dreams and waking I decided that Today was Day-1 for me. We had some errands to run and a Periodontal visit for my wife. So I hitched up the P245 and asked if the gun made my butt look fat, and she said, “What gun?” – and then off we went. At the ultimate hardware store I picked up some bunting for 4th of July, along with some bumpers for the base of the umbrella stands and a door-damper, then at another downtown shop some jalapeño flavored olive-oil, and finally down the street at the army surplus-shop a Gadsdan flag and a 7.62 ammo can. People smiled and dogs were well behaved. Old people stepped into the street and cars stopped to let them pass. No fights broke out and everything was without incident. Then off to Home Depot for MOAR tanbark! Six bags full, and some insect-spray… When my wife was done I picked her up, and we stopped on the way home at the grocery store to grab some milk and pork chops, and a couple steaks. Guns themselves don’t cause anything untoward to happen.
Sig P245

Paper pushing – Big Day!

The top of the cover sheet is checked **APPROVED**… Just ONE month after the initial application. My second interview with the Detective went well. I guess I am really a pretty boring person with no “exciting” criminal history and nothing much to hide. Truth is my a Permanent Record is pretty “thin,” he said. I mentioned the speeding ticket and that I wasn’t sure how long ago it occurred – but apparently it was over five years so the overworked DMV dropped me off the hot-sheet.
Other stuff: Being born overseas I always wonder what the question about birthplace triggers – or if it even shows-up on the list (it must), because it always seems to raise a local eyebrow, but The Professional foreheads remain untroubled, with eyes clear as glass – like riding on a sea of botox. So anyhow I had with me my Naturalization and Immigration papers, including some 56-year old Consulate documentation and foreign Hospital pulp-paper — stuff the current President doesn’t even have available in faked-up pseudo .PDF file – and didn’t hear “Boo” about that either. As an International Child of Mystery, I’m disappointed and wonder who’s gate-keeping, but welcome being on the Good-Guys side finally. I think.
My new BFF the Deputy Sheriff checked the gun’ SN#’s listed on the application. I removed the Hogue monogrip on the Model-10 .38spl and put the stock stocks back on, because it hides the SN# that’s stamped onto the bottom of the frame with a stirrup-latch screw-pin holder thing. He was checking the spurious numbers stamped on the crane, and I had to direct his attention to the actual serial-number location.
I thanked him for his work and told him how much we liked living here compared to life among the Foggy BayAryans, and he smiled and said, “We pretty much believe in the Constitution up here…” – or words to that effect. Now for an appointment to pick-up and get the Permit! Woot!!
(Updated to reflect unexpectedness and various commentary)

Update: Weather and Whether-to-Warrior, Pilgrim…

We’re watching the precious liquid drip (and hose) out of a sodden gray sky, surrounded by a thick blanket of clouds…not much to look at really.
Friday I have a CCW appointment at the Sheriff’s office to check the carry pistols on the list (there is a list you have to keep up-to-date). It will be a new world for me to enter into: Carryland – not to be taken lightly, I get to participate in my own defense.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Miguel has a fantastic post at Gun Free Zone titled “The warrior mystique and its non-application to the average citizen.” regarding the concept of an(y) armed populace and their use of imagery and metaphors including especially “the somewhat “cultish” admiration for the Knight and the Samurai.” Hear-hear and bravo! Re: Musashi’s statement, “Generally speaking the Way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death.” Miguel says (and I agree, and I think General Patton might also):

I am sorry but I do not “accept” death. I carry a gun and have gone through training and changed my head-in-the-clouds lifestyle because I do not want to be either harmed or killed by a Yakuza burakumin. I do understand that in a confrontation with a criminal, Death can happen to me as I am not perfect, but understanding the consequences and accepting it as fait accompli and making it part of my lifestyle are two very different things. If I were to accept Death, why would I even care to have a gun or prepare myself? The same goes for the Knight who would cheerfully die in battle doing the King’s business according to what they call honor.
… …
So who do Civilians should seek as role model? My very own choice (yours may vary) is the Pioneer/Homesteader: Somebody who wanted to live his life doing his work without interfering with others, but ready to lay down firepower to defend his family and his land from those who wish them harm.

Never start a fight; but always finish it.

Back to the various “Warrior” concepts bandied about; there’s another and different warrior tradition, ALSO from the EAST, a tradition that pre-dates Buddhism and the rock-ribbed tough-guy concepts expressed by Musashi – the Iron-Age era of the Mahābhārata, has a different opinions/conclusions too. Anyhow it works for me because I lived and studied there, and was a defenseless kid too. There’s something of the Arjuna and Krishna/Vishnu war-dialog from the Bhagavad-Gita in there. The great archer Arjuna is a man conflicted, he’s at war with his cousins (like the Hatfields and McCoys might have been) and with a heavy heart he hesitates pauses before shooting. His chariot-driver is (unbeknownst to him) Lord Vishnu, who’s advice he seeks. What he gets is somethign like:

Nothing personal (literally) kid, but in War, for the attainment of Liberation and Enlightenment (Moksha) and in defense of family (you) must stop hesitating and fulfill the/your Kṣatriya-Warrior duty – and kill as necessary. It’s not taken lightly, nor without conscience or guilt – but to hesitate is to fail more than yourself.

Anyhow, it’s a good read and the comments are blessed by some uncommon intelligence too.

My Hero, Evan Nappen

Can we get Evan Nappen to join us at the Gunblogger’s Rendezvous??  He’s my Hero.

From No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money we are absolutely delighted to learn an absolute travesty of Justice-System abuse has been righted, and “Even In New Jersey The Second Amendment Applies” (read it all at the link)

On Friday, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in New Jersey overturned the trial court in a case involving the denial of a firearms permit and ordered the return of Justin Blasko’s firearms absent any new disqualifying events. They made their decision on Second Amendment grounds.

Mr Blasko’s troubles started when his apartment’s building superintendent entered to fix his air conditioner and saw “assault weapons” along with other stuff including a four foot alligator. The super called police and they entered the apartment, seized his firearms, and issued him a summons for the alligator, a snake, and a leg-hold trap. They also filed a complaint that he had an illegal assault weapon.

Blasko entered a Pre-Trial Intervention program and the charges were eventually all dismissed. Moreover, the state later acknowledged that the alleged “assault weapons” were not in fact assault weapons as covered by NJ law. Following the dismissal of the charges, Blasko requested his firearms back.

Finally: The court then examined whether New Jersey law required Mr. Blasko to keep his firearms locked up in a safe or with other devices such as a trigger lock. More importantly, they examined this in the context of the US Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald. They concluded safe storage laws did not apply to Mr. Blasko as he was neither a commercial enterprise nor did he have minor children. They also concluded that based upon the Heller decision he was allowed to have his firearms accessible.

Despite a preference for the safe storage of weapons with safety locks, we conclude a law abiding adult, living alone without children, who openly leaves weapons in a locked apartment, insufficiently supports a finding of conduct contrary to the interest of the public health, safety or welfare pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(5). See Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at 635, 128 S. Ct. at 2822, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 683 (holding “the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment.

Mr. Blasko’s attorney was well-known gun law attorney Evan Nappen. More on the case can be found here. Nappen notes that this is the first time a higher court in New Jersey expressely applied the Second Amendment to a gun seizure case. This is definitely a win for gun rights in New Jersey and it was made possible by the careful building of Second Amendment case law by Alan Gura and others. 

How many Lies does it take to make a Liar?

As Say Uncle reports, Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence…and three-times is…a Charm? 

Lying under oath:
<a class="grouped_elements" href="; rel="dcgallery" title="Lanny Breuer and Eric Holder – Getty Images: Lanny Breuer and Eric Holder testify – Getty Images “>
Lanny Breuer and Eric Holder “testify” – Getty Images

Holder’s Department of Justice has already withdrawn two admittedly false statements made to Congress about Operation Fast and Furious. In December 2011, the DOJ withdrew a Feb. 4, 2011, letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley in which Holder’s DOJ LIE #1.

denied that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or the DOJ ever allowed guns to walk.

Holder’s DOJ withdrew a second statement this week — one Holder himself made during a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing: LIE #2.

“An attorney general who I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them — nothing,”

Holder told Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn during that hearing. “Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance.” The DOJ has withdrawn that statement because it’s admittedly false.

On Thursday afternoon, The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket reported that Gohmert pointed out how Holder made a similar false accusation against Mukasey during a June 7 House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Read more:


From the NRA-ILA…the Michigan House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to repeal the state’s dumb-ass handgun “permit-to-purchase” and illegal registration requirements. (My emphasis added)

House Bill 5225 passed in the state House by a 74 to 36 vote. HB 5225 would repeal the bureaucratic state “permit-to-purchase” handguns and instead utilize the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. House Bill 5498 and House Bill 5499 also passed in the state House along with HB 5225. These three bills now go to the state Senate where they will be assigned to the appropriate committees.
Some of the key points of HB 5225 as amended are:

  • Repeal the state requirement to seek police permission to purchase a firearm by traveling to a local police station and obtaining a permit to purchase.
  • Repeal the requirement to register a completely legally purchased and owned firearm by a law-abiding citizen to be registered with the government through the police.
  • Adopt the use of the federally-funded National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
  • Default to the federal standard of prohibited persons and each purchase would still require a background check.
  • Cut Michigan’s costs by using the federally-administered national instant background check system and eliminate wasted man-hours of tracking lawful gun owners in Michigan.

The end game, exposed

From one of my favorite GunBloggers, pantsless Robb Allen of the ParaJarrettBlackwaterBloggers (how I file my bookmarks):

The end game, exposed
Gun banners

Continuing my ‘Link to Sean’ theme, something I’ve always believed has had yet more proof thrown on the stack. This is from a book from a ‘big time’ gun controller, Josh Horrowitz

Recognize Insurrectionism as a threat to the entire progressive movement. Too many political progressives assume that the gun rights movement can be co-opted or simply ignored. Progressives fail to understand that the Insurrectionist idea is part and parcel of a broader reactionary worldview. Unless progressives recognize that the Insurrectionist premise of the modern gun rights movement is fundamentally hostile to the progressive project and its values, the “conservative” movement will use gun rights as a building block for organizing and propagandizing.

Why is the gun movement fundamentally hostile? Easy. Gun ownership is one of the major signs of independence, especially self-defense guns. By carrying a weapon upon your person or in your home, you signify that you are willing to stand up for yourself, that you do not intend to rely on the state to provide for your protection. Hunters show they do not need to rely on the USDA certifying their meats or the heavy taxation and regulations placed on the food supply. And self reliance is the death knell for ‘progressivism’, which demands that you bow before the all powerful state so that everyone can share in the misery.

And that ain’t going to happen.

This is why the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership Violence has to resort to personal attacks and ‘outing’ gun bloggers (which, slathered in schadenfreude, has gotten them kicked off of Twitter) . It’s why they delete comments that do not tow the party line and are the prime reason the term ‘Reasoned Discourse’ is an oxymoron. Unless the comment contains threats, illegal material, blatant racism, or spam, they stay here. I don’t even have the mechanics behind the scene to moderate comments. I do this because I know the truth and that my beliefs can stand up to anything the anti’s can try to throw at me.

It’s cliché but it’s true; It’s not about guns, it’s about control. And the progressive mindset seeks to enslave you to an all powerful state, for your own good as you are too stupid to do it yourself. It is rather difficult to corral people into the boxcars though when they can shoot your ass.
posted @ 5/19/2011 9:56:05 AM 

As friend GunBlogger  Say Uncle observed:

self reliance is the death knell for ‘progressivism’

I’d like to believe that independent people are not viewed as a threat to progressive ideals. But, as Josh Horowitz indicates, even they don’t pretend that’s the case any more.)

Another friend Gunbloggger Kevin Baker commented there: A long time ago, someone using the handle “Ironbear” put it this way:

This is a conflict of ideologies…

The heart of the conflict is between those to whom personal liberty is important, and those to whom liberty is not only inconsequential, but to whom personal liberty is a deadly threat.

You said it yourself some time back: If you fuck with me bad enough, I’ll kill your ass.

That’s the ultimate statement of the sovereign individual, the anti-collectivist, the “reactionary.” AND THEY KNOW IT.

Your personal liberty is a deadly threat to them. Rob’s right, it is rather difficult to corral people into the boxcars when they can shoot your ass.

From my standpoint, the thing is, “Progressives” are the only ones committed to a late 19th Century Ideology, so they are the real reactionaries.