Opening brief here.

TLDR: the defender BOTCHED his 2A argument.

Background: On 6/29/2022, federal and state LEOs executed warrants on George Peterson at his home, which happens to be the location for his FFL. The state search and arrest warrants were the result of delinquent parish sales taxes. The federal search warrant was based on alleged straw purchases, improper record keeping of 4473s, failure to complete and forward multiple firearm purchase forms, and issues related to quick time to crime traces involving firearms sold by his FFL. Feds seized his entire inventory and records, personal and business electronic appliances, and, unexpectedly, his unlicensed suppressor. Peterson argued that he purchased a “solvent trap” and a kit to convert it into a suppressor, and forgot about it until the search. He had no intent to keep the suppressor a secret nor refuse to pay the $200 tax. Basically, what’s hairy is that he was unsure if the conversion would render that suppressor operable or not, so he didn’t want to do so for an inoperable solvent trap, but after conversion, he forgot to do the paper work.

The opening brief then talks about the denial of motion to dismiss (MTD) and that of motion to suppress (MTS). We will talk about the denial of MTD.

Peterson points out the government having its cake and eating it too by saying that the suppressor is not a firearm when it actually is statutorily defined as such. Peterson relies on Heller to explain why suppressors are protected explicitly and implicitly. Regarding explicit protection, it says that silencers “are an integral part of a firearm, used to ‘cast … or strike’ a bullet at another person.” In reality, silencers themselves only allow bullets and exhaust gases to pass through, not to actually propel the bullet, so personally, I find this angle of attack somewhat of a stretch. Regarding implicit protection, it cites to US v. Miller in saying that “proper accoutrements” are protected, and suppressors count as such. This explanation is better, as accoutrements facilitate one in “bearing” arms. It also says that it receives implicit protection by saying that suppressors improve accuracy, reduce disorientation after firing, and mitigate users’ health, especially hearing.

Here’s one fatal flaw: while Peterson claims that the serial number and registration requirements imposes a burden on the right to possess silencers for lawful purposes (correct), they don’t pass intermediate scrutiny because they aren’t tailored to achieve government interest (I personally agree, but this is forbidden). It cites Murphy v. Guerrero by pointing out that the Northern Mariana Islands’ weapon identification card (WIC), which is to be issued between 15 and 60 days upon receipt of application, [c]ompletely prevent[ed] an individual from exercising his right to keep and bear arms.” He then says that the NFA average wait time is eight months, which is way longer than the WIC. Peterson then says that the government’s interest in suppressor regulation is “insubstantial” because they are rarely used in crime compared to handguns, which are not regulated under the NFA. Peterson then says that he has a clean record prior to this conviction, so NFA registration requirement is not “narrowly tailored” to the public purpose of keeping arms out of the hands of convicted felons.

The opening brief in its conclusion ask that the 5th Circuit reverse the denial of MTD, or alternatively, reverse the denial of MTS and have the district court hold an evidentiary hearing (it didn’t).

Personally, I feel that this lawyer has been living under a rock. Nowhere in the brief is Bruen mentioned. This lawyer didn’t even point out how District Judge Jay Zainey erred in denying the motion to dismiss (see my previous post on how he erred). This is why amicus briefs are strongly recommended, especially when there are subpar defenders. A particular example of such in my opinion? US v. Rahimi. The public defender in my opinion didn’t articulate clearly, and Kagan called him out. I hope that the amicus briefs give SCOTUS guidance in correctly issuing its opinion.

Dear National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR),

STOP sending me mail with "Firearms Disqualification Notice" on the outside of the envelope. Are you bonkers? Tell your marketing team to stop huffing whippits in the breakroom and try to engage your constiuency base with more grace, tact, and pointedness and less dumb f*&^%& ery.

Sincerely yours,

An irritated consumer.

Buried at the 48:30 minute mark of this podcast (https://www.smartless.com/episodes/episode/2138f342/3-presidents ) that just aired April 29, 2024, Biden says …

“Number one, we’re going to, in a second term, God willing, we’re going to make sure that we do something about gun violence in this country. The idea that we allow assault weapons to be sold with magazines with 100 rounds is just bizarre.”

… and the hosts chime in …

“The democrats never said they want to take your guns away. … You just don’t need to kill a deer with an AR-15.”

… to which Biden remarks …

“The 2nd Amendment, which I, when I taught law school — the 2nd Amendment wasn’t absolute ever. You weren’t able to have a cannon when you were — this — the [tree of] liberty is watered with the blood of patriots, I mean, that’s a bunch of crap.” *omits the word “tyrants”

It’s a handy summary of just some of this administration’s anti-gun agenda in less than a minute. Enjoy!

GOA claims "Simply by selling one firearm, individuals could be required to obtain a Federal Firearms License and conduct a background check or face criminal prosecution."

https://www.gunowners.org/goa-and-gof-join-state-of-texas-in-suit-against-bidens-universal-background-check-rule

But the new rule defines someone "engaged in the business" as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

As far as I can tell, this rule change is more the silly but harmless "look, we're doing something!" flavor of gun control vs. actual infringement, where basically all they did was remove the qualifier that one must also be making sales "with the principal objective of livelihood.”

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/08/2023-19177/definition-of-engaged-in-the-business-as-a-dealer-in-firearms

Link: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/national/2024/05/01/active-shooter-neutralized-outside-wisconsin-school-officials-say-amid-reports-of-shots-panic/

Has anyone heard who "neutralized" him? If it was the police or security, I would expect them to be shouting from the rooftops.

I feel like the media and popular opinion is driving towards using this recent tragic event as an example or reason for more gun control and an assault weapons ban and plastering it all over the news as such.

The accused felon had a long history of fighting back and resisting.

The Marshalls went in to take his weapons (serve a warrant) equipped to get into a firefight and got their fight. They knew what they were getting into and knew it was a very high risk door knock when they should have strategized to take him somewhere else.

If I was a family member of one of the victims, l'd be going after the police department for making a very poor decision.

I wish the families and everyone involved affected by this the very best.

From the Star Tribune

One of the more prominent quotes:

" That bill also would require annual reports on gun trafficking and ban binary triggers, which allow regular guns to become automatic. "

Oh really?

I have started to hear sketchy things about DEFCAD (aka FEDCAD). Is Cody Wilson also sketch as well (other than being a RSO)? I do agree with his opinion that technology at this point and the future will pretty much nullify gun control.