Category Archives: Zero Intelligence

Another patient for the “major brain deficiency” ward

Burglar breaks into house. Burglar takes shower. Homeowner returns. Burglar calls 911, worried that homeowner might have a gun. No joke, no lie.


Total failure to even identify a valid objective

Alan Gura and company have a new brief in the ongoing Ezell case in which Chicago required range training to get a gun license and then banned ranges.

Chicago’s arguments are so idiotic and insulting that it’s going to be a pretty open-and-shut case. There are so many money quotes that you really have to read it, but here’s one of my favorites (emphasis added):

Scudiero testified that she has never been to a gun range, has never read or studied any literature about gun ranges, has no experience or education with either the structure or operation of gun ranges, and has never investigated gun ranges for zoning purposes. App. 95, 104.


Nonetheless, the lower court allowed Scudiero to testify as to what she “imagine[s]” happens at a gun range. App. 96-97. Based on this imagination, Scudiero opined that gun ranges should be zoned as an “intense” use, similar to taverns, rock crushing facilities, salvage yards, incinerators, drive-through facilities, and adult establishments. Specifically, Scudiero opined gun ranges belong in manufacturing districts, but even then, only on a case-by-case special use basis. App. 98-101. However, Scudiero had no knowledge of whether gun ranges emit noise or emissions of any kind. App. 105-06.

And another great one:

The end result in this case would be the same under either strict or intermediate scrutiny, which requires that there be a “strong showing” that the regulation is “substantially related to an important governmental objective.” Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641 (citations omitted). Often times, as in Skoien, Yancey, or Williams, the governmental objective in gun regulation is not elusive, leaving courts to struggle with difficult questions of balancing and breadth. What makes this an unusually clear Second Amendment case is the government’s total failure to even identify a valid objective. Defendant’s attorney advised the City Council that it could do whatever it believed to be “reasonable” regarding gun ranges, and so the City Council simply banned ranges.

One more zinger:

Also unavailing is the claim that ranges can be banned because regulating them would overburden Defendant. Perhaps the people should be thankful Chicago does not find the “need” to regulate bookstores and churches too burdensome. The court below did not quite rely upon this argument, ruling only that the absence of regulation rendered it unsafe to enjoin the ban. It nonetheless merits mention that a “right” entitles individuals to do something, and is not dependent on the graces of the government. The notion that the government may ban outright whatever it finds too difficult to regulate is not a constitutional doctrine. If gun ranges are constitutionally protected, Defendant’s wholly optional regulatory costs are irrelevant. People do not lose their rights because the government decides it is too expensive to regulate or otherwise accommodate them.

BradyWatch: Low IQ patrol

Joan Peterson is at it again. This lady is amazing. There’s been some discussion as to just what her problem is. Is she a zealot? Does she have cognitive dissonance? Does she lack a process for determining truth from falsity? Is she a bigot?

Definitely she’s got a bunch of these, but I think she’s just plain not too bright. First, she doesn’t seem to get the internet. She deletes all the dumbest comments and then complains how intolerant and stupid we are, unaware that all she’s done is keep the cream of the crop, which compares quite unfavorably to her incoherence. Then there are whoppers like these:

As to your question, I don’t remember who, now, asked if I could show that legal assault weapons had been used in a gun crime. My question, as you very well know, is to find out what difference it makes whether or not someone is killed with a legal or illegally obtained assault rifle. One obtained illegally would be a stolen weapon, as in one of the stories to which I linked, or a street purchase by an prohibited purchaser. We all know it’s legal for felons and mentally ill people to purchase guns without background checks but they are prohibited from purchasing so it’s not right and should be illegal.

In addition to confusing similar terms and displaying a lot of general incoherence, I love how she claims in a single sentence that the purchase of firearms at gun shows by felons and crazies is both legal and prohibited. You can’t make this stuff up!

A semi-fully-automatic weapon, huh?

Daley is at it again with his nonsensical quips in support of gun hatred:

“Many times [the police are] outgunned, to be very frank. When they come to a scene, someone has a semi-fully-automatic weapon, and you have a little pistol, uh, good luck.”

You really have to wonder. I get that he has zero understanding of guns, but does there exist a “semi-fully” anything?

California sinks to a new low

No, it’s not another tax hike, civil rights violation, unfunded commission, or business-killing law; no, the San Luis Obispo county police department just issued a warning about pedobear. For realz. They even have public safety bulletins:

OMG this gun is scary so even though we already banned it it better be banned some more and if you dont want to ban it then clearly you hate children

What’s that putrid smell in the air? Ahh, it’s Illinois politics! Here’s an ad run by the sitting governor:

And the reason for ruining this man’s life is…?

An Oregon man is arrested for doing something probably every teenage boy has done at some time or other: blowing up dry ice in plastic bottles. The charges include five counts of unlawful possession of a destructive device, five counts of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device and four counts of disorderly conduct.

These are the kinds of charges that could put him away for life. And for what? Having a little fun and hurting nobody. Where is the societal benefit to expending public resources, including taxpayer dollars and the court system’s limited time, to destroy this man’s life?

Sadly, this is just the inevitable result of well-meaning but over-broad laws, a police force that’s distrustful of the citizens it’s charged to protect, and overzealous prosecutors who’ve forgotten the importance of intent in criminal justice.