Bet She Could Get A Job With TSA!

An Idaho woman posing as a plastic surgeon duped at least two women into letting her “examine” their breasts in a Boise bar and nightclub.

Kristina Ross, 37, remains in Ada County Jail in Boise on two felony counts of practicing medicine without a license.

Police say Ross introduced herself to victims — one at a downtown Boise bar and the other at a nightclub in a Boise suburb — as a plastic surgeon named Berlyn Aussieahshowna, a name that turned out to be bogus.

The two women told Boise officers they believed Ross was a physician because of her apparent medical knowledge, and they agreed to undergo what they thought were breast exams, which happened at the bars.

Dr. Berlyn Aussieahshowna ? Who in their right mind would go to a surgeon named Aussieahshowna? Heck, I can’t even begin to pronounce it.

Even more astounding is that they let her examine their breasts in a bar. It sounds like something out of the movie Animal House with Eric Stratton aka Otter doing the examining.

H/T Sister Toldjah

Motion to Dismiss in Illinois FOID Case is Denied

In the challenge to the Illinois FOID card brought by the Mountain States Legal Foundation, Mishaga v. Monken, Chief U.S. District Court Judge Michael P. McCuskey denied the defense’s motion to dismiss the case. His seven-page opinion was released this afternoon and orders the Illinois State Police to file an answer to the complaint by December 17th.

The Illinois Attorney General’s Office had filed a Motion to Dismiss in this case on October 15th. The motion was brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) for a  failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. They contended that Ms. Mishaga did not need a FOID card as she met one of the 6 exceptions to the requirement for out of state residents. Thus, the State Police’s denial of a FOID card for her was irrelevant and the case should be dismissed.

Attorney Jim Manley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation responded with a memorandum in opposition to this motion to dismiss on October 26th. He pointed out that in the original complaint for Ms. Mishaga that she sought to be be able to possess a functional firearm. Five of the six exceptions to the FOID card of out of state residents required an unloaded and cased firearm if not actively participating in hunting or a shooting event. The sixth exception required Ms. Mishaga to be licensed or registered in her state of residence. The only problem with that is that the state of Ohio does not register or license firearms owners and actually forbids it. He said the defense had confused lawful possession with licensing or registration and that was not was the Illinois law said.

Judge McCuskey’s opinion took a very methodical approach to determining whether the plaintiff stated a claim that could be granted relief. He first restated the facts of the case and makes note that she wishes to possess a function firearm while residing in her friend’s home.  He then examined the case law regarding when it was proper to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Judge McCuskey first looks at whether the complaint sufficiently spelled out the facts of the case. The Federal Rules and case law require that the allegation be “simple, concise, and direct” and that it contain enough factual content so that the court can “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” He found that under this standard a claim had been made.

He then examined whether the Illinois FOID card requirements infringed upon her right to possess a functional firearm. He notes that Heller found the Second Amendment protected the right to possess a firearm in one’s own house for self-defense and that Illinois generally requires a FOID card. The State Police have interpreted the law to require an Illinois driver’s license and this has interfered with her right to have a weapon in her temporary residence. By asking for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the Illinois State Police from interfering with her right to possess a firearm, he says she states a claim.

Judge McCuskey has an interesting footnote that telegraphs to the parties that he wants them to discuss the rights of a guest in a home to possess a weapon:

In this case, Mishaga is a guest in someone else’s home. The parties do not address whether Mishaga’s right to possess a weapon as a guest may be more limited than the homeowner in Heller because she is not protecting her own home and because her loaded weapon may present dangers to the permanent residents of the home or to other Illinois citizens. At some point in this proceeding, the parties may need to address the exact scope of the constitutional right of a guest to possess a weapon in the home of another person.

The judge examines the argument that Ms. Mishaga does not need a FOID card due to the six exceptions for out of state residents and that therefore they don’t infringe upon her rights:

The Court disagrees with the Director’s position. The Second
Amendment guarantees Mishaga the right to possess a weapon at her residence that she may use for personal protection in case of a confrontation. Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2797. Five of the six exceptions cited by the Director do not allow Mishaga to possess a weapon in useable condition in her friends’ home.

The Heller Court held that a requirement to make a weapon inoperable,such as the requirement that the weapon be unloaded and enclosed in acase, violates the homeowner’s constitutional right to bear arms because therequirement makes the weapon useless for personal defense. Heller, 128S.Ct. at 2818.3 Even with these exceptions, therefore, the Act still prohibitsMishaga from possessing a useable weapon for defense in her friends’residence.

 Finally, Judge McCuskey deals with the sixth exception – being registerd or licensed to possess a firearm in Ohio – might be satisfied by the possession of an Ohio CCW permit. The complaint never states whether Ms. Mishaga possesses an Ohio CCW or not. Thus:

For purposes of the Motion, the Court must assume that she does not, and so, must assume that this exception does not apply to her. The Complaint, therefore, alleges that the Act prohibits Mishaga from possessing a weapon at her temporary residence in Illinois that she may use for personal protection in violation of her constitutional right to bear arms. Mishaga states a claim.

Given the recent electoral results in Illinois where the anti-gun rights candidate won the Governor’s Office, the outcome of this case bears watching. As it is, the arguments of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office have been found lacking and their motion to dismiss was denied.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh examines the case here on the Volokh Conspiracy and Dave Hardy comments on the case at Of Arms and the Law. Given that both of these attorneys are leading Second Amendment scholars, I see this as recognition that Mishaga is turning out to be more important than some previously thought.

Traver on the AK-47

View more news videos at:

According to The Truth About Guns blog, this video of Andrew Traver and a reporter shooting an AK-47 which has been circulating on the Internet disappeared for a while. It is back up and worth watching again.

If there were firearms experts on that range, then why was the reporter from NBC Chicago allowed to handle it in such an unsafe manner? Did they purposely have the reporter shoot from the hip in an effort to make a propaganda point?

If a ten year old child soldier in some banana republic in Africa can effectively handle an AK-47, why can’t the reporter? Am I supposed to believe that some warlord would provide better firearms training than the ATF?

I’m sure this video played well on the Chicago Gold Coast but to anyone with any experience with firearms the conscious and deliberate display of unsafe gun handling in an attempt to score political points is an abomination.

A Walk through the Amicus Briefs in McDonald v. Chicago

Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, and Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, has provided a very useful tool to any one who seeks a better understanding of how the Second Amendment and gun rights were incorporated to states and municipalities. In More Friends of the Second Amendment: A Walk through the Amicus Briefs in McDonald v. Chicago he has summarized each and every amicus brief that was submitted to the Supreme Court in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. Given that there were 32 briefs in favor of McDonald, 16 in favor of Chicago, and two that were ostensibly neutral, this was a major task.

Of the briefs and the question presented by the McDonald case, Shapiro has this to say:

And so, in the wake of Heller, legal scholars and lay people alike widely anticipated the Court’s rejection of Chicago’s far-reaching prohibition on private gun ownership but did not know how the Court would go about doing so. Would it resurrect the Privileges or Immunities Clause or continue using a suspect doctrine—one that Justice Antonin Scalia has called “babble”—for protecting individual rights against state infringement?

That was perhaps the most interesting question at issue in McDonald, but there were others too, with activists, think tanks, politicians, and concerned citizens of all stripes filing 50 amicus briefs (fourth all-time). Many focused on the Due Process versus Privileges or Immunities issue, while others discussed the incorporation of rights generally—treating the debate over Fourteenth Amendment clauses as an academic technicality.

The breadth of the amicus briefs provide an insight into the divisions between those who are pro-gun rights and those who were anti-rights. You had state attorneys general on both sides of the issue just as you had competing groups of Members of Congress. Some briefs, more or less, duplicated the arguments of other amicus briefs and were probably submitted as much as to say they did something (and to raise money) as anything else. That said, Shapiro notes “a not insignificant number of the briefs—even if they didn’t end up being cited—seemed to have genuinely helped the justices write their opinions.”

This belongs in everyone’s library of works on the Second Amendment. Think of it as serious Cliff Notes guide to the amicus briefs presented in McDonald. If you need to do more in-depth research on a brief, this compendium will point you in the right direction.

H/T Dave Hardy

SAF and NJARPC Sue New Jersey Over Handgun Permits

From the Second Amendment Foundation:


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against several New Jersey officials for deprivation of civil rights under color of law.

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. and six private citizens whose applications for permits to carry have been denied generally on the grounds that they have not shown a “justifiable need.” One of the plaintiffs is a kidnap victim, another is a part-time sheriff’s deputy, a third carries large amounts of cash in his private business and another is a civilian employee of the FBI in New Jersey who is fearful of attack from a radical Islamic fundamentalist group. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David D. Jensen and Robert P. Firriolo with the firm of Duane Morris, LLP in Newark.

Named as defendants in the case are three Superior Court judges, Philip J. Maenza, Morris County; Rudolph A. Filko, Passaic County and Edward A. Jerejian of Bergen County, plus Col. Rick Fuentes, superintendent of the State Police, Hammonton Police Chief Frank Ingemi and New Jersey Attorney General Paula T. Dow.

“Law-abiding New Jersey citizens have been arbitrarily deprived of their ability to defend themselves and their families for years under the state’s horribly-crafted laws,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The law grants uncontrolled discretion to police chiefs and other public officials to deny license applications even in cases where the applicant has shown a clear and present danger exists.

“If being a kidnap victim, or part-time law enforcement officer, or the potential target of a known radical group does not clearly demonstrate a justifiable need,” he continued, “the defendants need to explain what would. Do citizens need guns to their heads or knives to their throats before the state considers their need to be justified?

“Supreme Court rulings have made it clear that the Second Amendment prohibits states from completely banning the carrying of handguns for self-defense,” Gottlieb said. “Nor may states deny citizens the right to carry handguns in non-sensitive places or deprive them of the right to carry in an arbitrary and capricious manner. That’s what is happening today in New Jersey, and we intend to stop it.”

Sebastian at SnowFlakesInHell has more on the suit here.

A copy of the complaint may be found here.

Passenger Strips Rather Than Be Patted-Down

Normally the fact that a passenger stripped rather than to submit to being scanned or be patted down would be interesting but of not much relevance on a gun blog. Except when the person is well-known San Diego open carry activist Samuel Wolanyk.

You may remember that at the end of September the City of San Diego reached a settlement with Mr. Wolanyk for his improper arrest for unloaded open carry. He won $35,000 and a Finding of Factual Innocence and the SDPD also agreed to enhance the training of their police officers.

In this case, Mr. Wolanyk, a frequent flyer, chose to strip to his underwear rather than undergo a pat-down or go through the scanner. As NBC San Diego reports:

Through a statement released by his attorney Sunday night, Wolanyk said “TSA needs to see that I’m not carrying any weapons, explosives, or other prohibited substances, I refuse to have images of my naked body viewed by perfect strangers, and having been felt up for the first time by TSA the week prior (I travel frequently) I was not willing to be molested again.”

Wolanyk’s attorney said that TSA requested his client put his clothes on so he could be patted down properly but his client refused to put his clothes back on. He never refused a pat down, according to his attorney.

Wolanyk was arrested for refusing to complete the security process and for recording the incident on his iPhone, according to his attorney.

My guess is that TSA is more upset about the recording of the incident on his iPhone than having Mr. Wolanyk strip down.

The logic of TSA also baffles me. If you have a guy in his underwear in front of you, why do you need him to get dressed so you can pat him down? Can’t you just look at him and see he doesn’t have any weapons taped to his body? They could also examine the clothing on the floor if they thought something was secreted away in it.  But then again, using the word logic in conjunction with TSA is an oxymoron.

ATF Issues Cease and Desist Order to Non-Firearms Manufacturer

On Thursday, the ATF hand delivered a Cease and Desist order to KT Ordnance of Dillon, MT. They are a company that machines 60% unfinished 1911 frames and AR-15 lowers. The products requires additional machining to make them usable. For example, on the 1911 unfinished frames, you still must cut the the slide rails and the barrel seat cut as well as drilling the hammer and sear holes. I know I’m not enough of a metal worker to do this!

As you can see in the picture below, it is hunk of metal that can’t readily be made into a firearm without much additional work.

David Codrea in his National Gun Rights Examiner has an extensive report on this. He also has copies of the letter delivered to KT Ordnance as well as their attorney’s response to the ATF. The way the ATF is going about it is fairly strange as Codrea notes:

Here’s the thing: IF Celata is doing what the government accuses him of, since when do they give out warnings and advise people to get a license? Can you imagine the DEA finding you formulating and selling Oxycontin and responding by hand-delivering a letter telling you to stop and not resume activities until you become a legally-authorized pharmacist?

And since when does ATF do things that way? This looks like nothing so much as a clumsy attempt at entrapment–if they can get him to acknowledge in writing that what he is doing constitutes manufacturing firearms, they’ll be able to use that to obtain a warrant, do a raid and then characterize it to a jury as Celata’s “admission/confession.”

This bears watching.

Black (Rifle) Friday Sale

Brownells, the source of parts and tools of darn near everything firearms related, is having their own Black Friday sale – except that it is a Black Rifle Friday sale. I think it is a great play on words!

Here is their press release on it along with links to their coupon codes.

Save on your gun related Christmas shopping starting at 12:00 AM, Friday, November 26! Go to 12:00 AM to get the special coupon code, or be a friend on Facebook, and get early access to the coupon code, and a head start on savings. Entering the coupon code will save you 10% off any order over $150! The exclusive savings run through midnight, on “Cyber-Monday”, November 29, so make out your wish list for Santa and get ready to save! And, selected items have special, reduced prices, available all weekend; AND, the 10% offer is good there, too!

Comply With Me

What can you say about the Iowahawk except that he is brilliant!

Eric Felten in his Wall Street Journal column yesterday had this to say sarcastically with reference to the TSA anger at criticism of their new “procedures”:

Shame on those of you who have bought the “Don’t Touch My Junk” T-shirts that entrepreneurs made available this week. Shame too on the Tea Party types who mocked the inviolable authority of the TSA by replacing the Gadsden Flag’s “Don’t Tread On Me” with Mr. Tyner’s impertinent slogan. And treble shame on the blogger Iowahawk who demeaned not only the TSA but Frank Sinatra by recasting “Come Fly With Me” as “Comply With Me.” (The lyric “Once I get you up there” became “Once I get all up there.”) You should all be aware that the TSA is not amused.

Colt 1911 Rail Gun

At the same time Colt’s Manufacturing was rolling out the SP901 Modular Carbine to writers and bloggers at Gunsite, they were rolling out a new version of the 1911. Called the Rail Gun, it is part of their XSE line of 1911’s and features an integral rail for use with weapon-mounted lights or lasers. It is a full-sized Government model 1991 in either blackened or brushed stainless steel, has Novak 3-dot sights, an upswept beavertail grip, and the previously mentioned integral rail. Currently it is only available in .45 ACP.

Michael Bane reviews the pistol for DownRange TV in the video below. From the comments he made, it is obvious that he likes it. I believe he said in his recent podcast that he liked it enough to buy it. When a gun writer buys a gun with his own money that says something.