Category Archives: regulation

Consensus

Posted on by
Reply

US District Judge William Shubb blocked California’s Progressive-Democratic Party-dominated State house and Governor’s mansion law that sought to punish doctors accused of promulgating Covid “misinformation.” By “misinformation, those worthies meant anything that didn’t comport with California’s “medical consensus.” The block is, on the whole, good, but Shubb unfotunately centered his ruling on the difficulty in correctly defining “consensus” in this or that endeavor, or in correctly identifying the sources qualified to define the relevant consensus.

That’s merely a subset of the larger problem with consensus, though.

That larger problem is the idea that any consensus should govern. Consensus isn’t science, which changes over time and among…scientists…it’s only the majority vote of what that majority thinks—rightly or wrongly—is correct today. Adhering to even a correctly identified consensus inhibits, if it doesn’t prevent altogether, innovation and science evolution.

“Historical Tradition”

Posted on by
Reply

US District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb extended her injunction against New Jersey’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Phil Murphy-led law attempting to block New Jersey citizens from carrying firearms virtually anywhere within the State. Her extension blocks

restriction[s] on permitted gun owners from carrying concealed weapons in public parks, on beaches, and in casinos.

Her prior injunction already blocks enforcement of those parts of the law that banned

guns from being carried in “sensitive locations,” including public libraries; museums; entertainment venues like stadiums, arenas, and amusement parks; bars; restaurants where alcohol is served; public parks; beaches; playgrounds; and airports and public transportation hubs.

That’s all to the good. However, I disagree with the rationale for her lately extension of her injunction.

“Bumb cited [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v] Bruen and said that New Jersey had failed to supply sufficient evidence that some of the “sensitive places” where firearms are banned are rooted in “a historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which is the legal standard established by the Supreme Court.

I think the Supreme Court is wrong on this. Historical tradition as a legal standard gives already extant tradition the force of law instead of leaving it an informed input into court understandings of what the actual law is and means. Further, using historical tradition as the standard prevents the establishment of new traditions as informed input into court understandings of what the actual law is and means.

Keep it simple: …the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From Johnson’s Dictionary, 10th ed, pub 1792, Infringe: 1: To violate; to break laws or contracts.

From The American Heritage Dictionary, current: Infringe: 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate

Nothing material has changed in the meaning of the term. There’s no need to read anything else into it.

Proud Censorship, and Keeping and Bearing

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois’ law banning even the possession of semiautomatic weapons took effect last Tuesday, when the Progressive-Democrat governor, JB Pritzker, signed the bill after the Illinois House passed what the State’s Senate had handed over.

Aside from the plain unconstitutionality of the law, though, what especially drew my attention is this statement from Pritzker:

We will keep fighting—bill by bill, vote by vote, and protest by protest—to ensure that future generations only hear about massacres like Highland Park, Sandy Hook, and Uvalde in their textbooks[.]

No one is to be allowed access to, Illinois’ children are to be denied, information regarding firearms other than what the Progressive-Democratic Party that rules Illinois approves.

Pritzker openly brags about that denial of speech.

Related is this position by Edwards County, IL, Sheriff Darby Boewe:

Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution. One of those rights enumerated is the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS provided under the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people.

Boewe is absolutely correct on the matter except for the narrowness of his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. What that Amendment says, in full, is this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to be able to mount an effective Militia, each of us American citizens must be able to be individually armed and facile with our individually owned weapons. Government is not permitted to limit the weapons any of us can possess and keep with us wherever we might go (especially if we’re needed for a Militia and its suite of weapons), nor is Government permitted to dictate to any of us our purpose in the possessing and carrying—that Militia is only one such purpose. Defense of life, liberty and property is only one such purpose. Shall not be infringed is much broader.

A State Supreme Court Justice Didn’t Mince Words

Posted on by
Reply

In TWISM Enterprises v State Board of Registration, TWISM, an engineering company, sued Ohio’s Board of Registration over being denied a contract to provide engineering services to the State of Ohio. The Regulators had denied the contract on the grounds that Ohio’s engineers must be employees of the State. Never mind that the applicable Ohio law requires no such thing. Per The Wall Street Journal‘s editors,

The court ruled 7-0 that the regulatory board had essentially rewritten Ohio law by insisting that anyone providing engineering services must be an employee, and not an independent contractor. The statute says no such thing, and the court ruled for the company.

Justice Patrick DeWine expanded on that in the ruling, as he wrote and was joined by three more of the seven:

[He] swept away competing lines of previous Ohio deference cases to make clear that “the judicial branch is never required to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law.” The agency’s view “is simply one consideration a court may sometimes take into account in rendering the court’s own independent judgment as to what the law is,” he writes.

Never required. Court’s own independent judgment. What he, and they, said.

California Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

California has a new law, with effect at the start of this year, that requires semiautomatic pistols sold there to have microstamping capability on the pistols’ firing pins. The tech would stamp the brass when the pistol discharges a round, and from that, the brass could be tied back to the pistol that fired it.

As part of the implementation, the California Department of Justice now asks Firearm manufacturers and Interested Parties a number of questions about how the rule should be implemented. These questions include

  • Who is best suited to provide the microstamp to the DOJ?
  • When should the microstamp be provided to the DOJ?
  • How should the microstamp be provided to the DOJ?
  • If a microstamp part needs to be replaced, should the regulated replacement part have the same microstamp as the original?

This Interested Party offers some answers, even though I’m not a citizen of California, being glad instead to be a citizen of Texas:

  • No one
  • Never
  • N/A, see above
  • N/A, see above

California’s move is just another in a long chain of efforts by gun control…persons…to build up a database of who has what firearms so they can be seized at a later date.