The finger gun gesture is banned in the NFL as part of a broader ban against any kind of gun or violence-related gesture within games.

My cousin recently got arrested for lying to a Glendale police officer about not having a firearm when they asked if he was armed. The police officer stopped him (21) & his 17 year old brother while they were walking to circle K at 59th Ave n Bethany Hm Rd. The police officers mentioned there were people breaking into vehicles nearby so they were prompted to ask if he was armed. My cousin denied, but later on into the situation they ended up searching him and they found my firearm on him. (He was conceal carrying, with a holster) The officers searched the seriel numbers on gun and said the gun is good but they still took my cousin in. But my question is would I be able to go retrieve the firearm or would his mother be able too? Since the firearm is mine but it isn't registered under my name. I purchased it through private sale from a dude in Flagstaff. Long story short would my cousin be able to retrieve the firearm back after he gets out or would I be able too? And what would be the process of it? Please and thank you! (Edit: I lended the firearm to him, here in Arizona it's legal to do so. & For clarification The 21 year old was carrying & the 17 year old was driven home by a police officer)

I am horrified about the defense and glorification of Luigi Mangione, but I guess I shouldn’t be.

In one hand, the argument is that the guns that are not threatening or harming anyone have to go. We have to, even if it saves just one life, and anyone who disagrees is angry, unreasonable, and complicit in taking lives.

In the other hand, the argument is that there isn’t a rational or moral basis for condemning a hit on an insurance executive.

Welcome back to the coliseum, good people. Voting is now open about who the gladiators and lions should dispatch today.

Edit: I was trying to avoid any filter/mod issues around using the word “murder”, but that, apparently, was a mistake, which I will not repeat.

Case name is US v. Alsenat. Case number is 24-14058.

Earlier, I reported a case titled US v. Hassan Jones, but the opening brief didn't address the failed 2A challenge on full autos.

Defendant Alsenat filed a motion to dismiss the indictment brought to him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Per the indictment, he sold three full auto conversion devices to an undercover officer on June 21, 2023 which constitute a full auto under federal law. He sets up the textual argument saying that possessing full autos is conduct under 2A, and claims that there’s no historical analogue of banning the possession of full autos.

The government opposed by saying that the text only applies to arms in common use, and in regards to the historical analysis, machine guns, which didn’t exist at the time of the country’s founding, entered the civilian market shortly after WWI and were soon widely used by criminals, per John Ellis’s The Social History of the Machine Gun. The government also cited “arm bans” during the Antebellum era like the bowie knives, slung shots, etc. (which aren’t “weapons of war”), and affray laws.

Defendant then replied by pointing out how the government is mis-interpreting US v. Miller. Defendant says that the government is relying on dicta. He then says that there are 740,000 total machine guns in the nation (which is mis-leading, since there are at most 176,000 in civilian hands), and even says that unlawfully owned machine guns (by “law-abiding” citizens) count for the purposes of “common use.” Defendant then rebuts those “arms ban” laws by saying that it only criminalized conduct, not the mere possession.

A report and recommendation was filed, in which it held that the text protects arms “in common use”. In other words, if it’s not in common use, the text doesn’t protect the conduct of possessing such an arm.

Defendant then objected to the R&R. He said that Heller only considered handguns, and any statements that address broader contours of 2A and indicating that the protections extend only to weapons “in common use” are dicta because the issue about full autos wasn’t before the court. In fact, 2A extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that didn’t exist in the Founding. Defendant points out that the cases concluding that full autos aren’t protected assert that they are primarily possessed by criminals. Defendant also objects the statement that the absolute number of privately-owned full autos isn’t sufficient for common use, but rather one needs to look at the number of jurisdictions (i.e. states) that permit ownership of the same by citing to Easterbrook’s circularity statement on “common use.” In fact, Defendant also refers to Maloney v. Singas. Finally, the Defendant points out that the R&R failed to hold the government to its burden of pointing out any historical analogues.

Unfortunately, the judge denied the motion to dismiss. The judge agrees that while weapons that didn’t exist at the time of the founding are afforded 2A protection, and that full autos are “arms”, they aren’t the type of arms that receive such. In footnote 9, the judge said that Heller rejected a reading of Miller that would mean that the NFA’s restriction on full autos might be unconstitutional, and that the former read the latter by concluding that 2A doesn’t protect weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like short-barreled shotguns.

After analyzing various cases and their approaches, he concludes that machine guns are not “in common use,” and even cited to one case that stated that machine guns “have no appropriate sporting use or use for personal protection.”

In regards to “unusual”, he points out the courts different definitions. They either say that they aren’t common in society, or whether it comports with self-defense, the essential purpose of 2A. He cites to a statement in Capen v. Campbell that mentioned that while machine gun can certainly have self-defense uses, it would be a highly unusual weapon to be carried on a city sidewalk or to keep at a bedside, even if it were legal to possess one (very subjective!). He then concludes that the Defendant hasn’t shown that owning a full auto would promote self-defense, and that purpose isn’t a persuasive justification for owning machineguns (what about fighting off a stampede or a horde of enemies?).

The judge writes in the alternative that conversion devices aren’t “arms” because it isn’t a “weapon of offence” or “anything that a man … useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” He even said that accessories or “accoutrements” fall outside the scope of 2A because they “generally have no use independent of their attachment to a gun”, and held that such accessories like conversion devices aren’t “essential” to the firearm’s functionality.

Defendant then pled guilty, and judgment was entered on 11/26/2024. The transcripts have been ordered, and once filed, per 11th Circuit Rules 12-1 and 31-1, Defendant has 40 days from the filing date to file an opening brief.

Notice: This is not an exhaustive list.

Third Circuit

1. Robert Molloy. He upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) by improperly narrowing the conduct to possession of a "de-serialized" firearm, despite it being an aesthetic feature, not a functional feature. He has done so for every criminal challenge against it. He also stated that a law is an infringement if it infringes on a law-abiding citizen's right to armed self-defense. He also lowered the bar for irrelevant analogues.
2. Christy C. Wiegand. She upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) by saying that 2A doesn't apply to possessing machine guns for self-defense as they aren't "in common use for lawful purposes," and misread the "startling" phrase from Heller.
3. Jennifer P. Wilson. She latched onto Molloy's opinion.
4. Maryellen Noreika. While she didn't address the textual threshold, she lowered the bar for analogues in denying the motion to dismiss. She otherwise held that Delaware's 3-D printing ban violated 2A in granting the preliminary injunction.

Fourth Circuit

1. Rossie David Alston, Jr. He upheld the Pistol Brace Rule and the NFA by saying that laws regulating accessories and attachments don't implicate 2A, and even if it does, it doesn't ban stabilizing braces nor braced firearms, but rather requires owners and entities to comply with NFA's statutory requirements. As for short-barreled guns, he joins other opinions that have improperly stated that those are "dangerous and unusual."
2. Roderick Young. He held that full autos aren't textually protected because that they're "dangerous and unusual" despite the number of privately owned full autos being higher than the 64,890 nunchucks.
3. Thomas Kleeh. Although he struck down the 18-20-year-old handgun purchase ban, he improperly interpreted US v. Miller in upholding the NFA as applied to SBS's in denying the motion to dismiss.

Fifth Circuit

1. James David Cain Jr. He denied the motion to dismiss the charges regarding dealer paperwork under 2A. He also upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) under Hollis v. Lynch.
2. David C. Joseph. He used interest balancing to point out the potential criminal misuse of suppressors due to their features to conclude that they are "unusual" in denying the motion to dismiss the charge under the NFA as applied to suppressors.
3. Karen Gren Scholer. She upheld the NFA as applied to short-barreled rifles because they aren't "in common use" because of the NFA, and hence possessing an unregistered SBR isn't covered under 2A's plain text. She made a circular argument and got the task backwards. She even stated that even if such arms weren't dangerous and unusual historically, they are today.
4. Mark Pittman. He upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) by saying that the numbers (176,000 privately owned machine guns and 740,000 total machine guns) are too insignificant for machine guns to be in common use.

Sixth Circuit

1. Thomas Lee Robinson Parker. He found the denial of dismissal in US v. Hudson (now on appeal) persuasive.

Eighth Circuit

1. Charles Joseph Williams. He held that the NFA registration requirement doesn't implicate conduct protected by 2A as applied to SBS's.

Eleventh Circuit

1. William Fredric Jung. He said that silencers are not "bearable arms" and said that the analogues are relevantly similar to the NFA (they aren't) in denying the motion to dismiss.
2. Jeffrey Ulhman Beaverstock. He held that Miller, Heller, and Bruen foreclose the full auto challenge.
3. Jean-Paul Boulee. He adopted the report and recommendation that possessing full autos is not protected by the plain text of 2A.

If Trump ever elevates any of them, tell the Senate Judiciary Committee to question or hammer them.

Obviously a current topic…

Obviously, storage requirements are an infringement on self-protection, not just for adults in the house, but also, say, for a teenage girl who finds herself facing a 200-pound, armed intruder when her parents happen to be away from home.

But what about the case of a child who is a known threat, like that Virginia six-year-old who shot his teacher? (Or whatever other scenario you imagine.) The parents have criminal and civil liability for failure to store guns under whatever imagined requirements?

To be clear, I am on the no-storage-requirements side of this. (It’s just another avenue in the pursuit of nullification.) But talk me through the gray areas and outlier cases.

** Re-stating the question more clearly: Give me gun storage scenarios (if any), where you would say, hands down and without hesitation, THAT parent 100% needs criminal charges. **

————————————

Thank you! You all helped me put a sharper edge on my thinking.

Here is where I have landed so far:

— If a child or teenager becomes committed to murder or self-deletion, LOTS of things have gone wrong that have nothing to do with the presence or storage of a gun.

— Parenting and home are the keys to understanding the problem, and they are a more effective solution, rather than storage laws, which only serve to criminalize gun ownership.

— That said, if anyone actively “aids” a known criminal or obviously dangerous person… or actively contributes to a situation that no reasonable person would (such as leaving a loaded gun on a daycare table)… then there are already laws to hold people accountable.

I spent a few days writing this and quite a bit of reading to get some structure to my opinion. I'd imagine lots of y'all have done something similar and I appreciate you. I cannot stress enough how convoluted our legal system is and in the interest of preparedness would recommend using a lawyer/paralegal friend or professional forum when something is unclear. Seriously, legal jargon is almost intentionally worded so that lay-people misunderstand, its a mine-field of negative phrasing and conditionals. I stepped on those mines more than I care to admit... So obviously critique and verify EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.

Disclaimer, I essentially have 1 political issue I feel educated enough on to make informed voting decisions, which is Healthcare. I have opinions on others but my occupation, education, experience predispose me to voting on agreeable public health policy over everything else at this time.

I also own 3 firearms, an AR-10, 9mm for carry, and 12 gauge w/ 18 and 22 inch barrels for defense and turkey respectively. I guess the 18 could serve as both if a turkey were to break in. I oppose a ban an any weapon by aesthetic, magazines should not be capped, and suppressors regulations need to go away completely. On the fence w/ bump stocks (they're not the easiest to use under stressful conditions so I lean towards them being good) Binary triggers are gucci. Next are my gripes...

I do want people to know how to shoot if they have a gun. This stems from a few occasions in ranges where I have been asked to help somebody get their gun working and they just simply hadn't loaded a magazine and charged it. Another when a beautiful Q Sugar Weasel came through and the owner emptied 90 rounds with no impacts at 25 yards (and of course he had an Eotech enclosed red dot), he asked range operator for help, low and behold the dot was dead on. My mans was rocking a punisher 2A shirt for the cherry on top. This is all not to mention the terrifying lack of accuracy I've seen at the 0-10 yard pistol ranges. I travel for school and have put at least 126 rounds (bare minimum I roll in with 6 of my 21 capacity mags) through my p320 at ranges in Michigan, Louisiana, Florida, and Ohio its anecdotal but I reserve the right to be upset with the lack of responsibility a not insubstantial amount of fellow gun-owners exhibit.

My gripe plays hand in hand with why I think the current understanding of the 2A is actually straying from the founders intention and thus weakening the protections it was meant to grant.

“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.”

It is disingenuous to claim that the 2A has one interpretation or was even written with the same intention amongst all the Founding Fathers. James Madison appeared to lean heavily into the regulated militia component and did not advocate for unrestricted access to firearms for personal defense. Hamilton even wrote in Federalist papers about a concern for unstructured armed citizenry! Washington is a little enigmatic about it but he did love a well-trained militia! Thomas Jefferson. along with Madison were responsible for the board decision to ban firearms on the University of Virginia's campus. Yes, I have actively sought out instances where Founders favor less restriction, valid observation but my point was to prove a lack of consensus in the Founders amongst each other and even their future-past selves!

IMO the frontier era did more for shifting the 2A from a means of collective protection against tyranny to a weaker (let me explain after this) individualized self defense right. As militia's protected group interests , more and more individuals sought the solitude, opportunity, freedom, adventure. etc. of the pioneer Militias by default can't go with each person everywhere so Americans needed a means to defend themselves and their property in the instance of the U.S government or more likely the heavy hand of Oil/Railroad Barons encroached. Range wars, Johnson County war, Ludlow massacre, Haymarket, and more got the citizenry rightfully riled up about the thin line between free and owned, and we all agreed that we defend the line with firearms. The reason I believe we diminish the 2A when we hark on the individual nature of self defense is because I feel as if we ignore the super important militia aspect! So any time legislation is being passed or proposed, the vigilance on preserving our personal protection makes people blind to the restrictions that may be imposed on the collective spirit of the 2A. For instance, if you can honestly tell me you know about the recent Para-military restrictions in Vermont and Maine then I applaud you but if not, look out. 2A "purists" foam at the mouth anytime a Democrat says clip instead of magazine or committing the mortal sin of saying silencer, all while vague restrictions on public firearms drilling and training get by with no media coverage even at Fox and Toilet Paper and all those other 2A Screaming heads.

When Scalia came out of his Textualist isolation room and suddenly developed an imagination in the Heller decision, our 2A amendment felt like it got rewritten! Reading about it was so insane. Scalia's reasoning was rooted in English Common Law. Which seems to be how most people think of the 2A now. It established in precedent that the 2A's "right of the people" within the context of the Founders admiration/reliance of English Common Law was enough to establish that the people have a god given right to use a gun for defense of personal liberty, property, security. While the origins of the 2A were influenced by ECL when written, the founders avoided explicitly referencing it because there was a ton of God stuff which the fathers commendably avoided to enhance the secularity and thus improve the defense that the Constitution is rooted in objectivity. Also the genius behind ECL, William Blackstone, was morally opposed to slavery and his ECL was fundamentally opposed to its institution despite slavery persisting due to massive economic influence in England.

Scalia conveniently left out any reference to the myriad of conflicting opinions on gun control by the Founders and William Blackstone's qualification that firearm possession is subject to "condition and degree" or status and circumstance. Making the ECL his major contextual reasoning for the decision whilst ignoring the significant amount of limitations imposed on firearms in those laws makes for a sandy foundation. Also the interpretation left some loopholes open. 2A does not strictly apply to U.S citizens which begs the question of whether its a natural right or a Federal right because natural right would imply those pesky undocumented immigrants have an avenue for firearms possession.

The modern understanding of the 2A appears to be hyper-focused on individual rights, when this has only recently been clarified in the 2008 Heller decision. The decision is considered a huge W, and I agree to an extent, but everyone seems to have forgotten the actual scope of the 2A. My interpretation is that I have the right to own a firearm and train with said firearm for the purposes of defending the collective interests of my community at large which includes myself. In modern context it grants me and my militia members the right to "keep" our arms, and other materials required for a regulated militia in a facility that can be accessed by militia members. This ensures collective readiness and pooling of resources like comms, armor, vehicles, food, water etc so that our anti-tyrannical capabilities aren't limited to a random collection of "Operators" that haven't trained in their plates, have an unfired safe queen that is also their bug out gun, have 3000 rounds of .327 magnum and no food, and/ or the super prepped who will just mine and distance their 100 acres and pretend that defense against Tyranny will be a passive "get of my lawn" scenario.

EDIT**

I apologize for not being the most clear but the fact that no one has addressed the shocking degree of neutering the militia component of our 2A has undergone is unfortunate. It seriously makes my argument! I asserted that people are too focused on the individual rights part to notice the other half got taken from us. The comments are off the hip assumptions that I am attacking the 2A and there is nothing in my argument that suggests that was even a point of mine, let alone the crux of my argument.

Title 10 Sec 246 of US code has defined Militia for us and granted congress control. They sugar coated it with dual status but we all know who wears the pants. The rest of us ARE BY LAW classified as unorganized militia and the idea of an independent organization of private citizens capable of community/self defense has been criminalized! Do better people!