Notes from the Resistance
That is a speech case dressed up as a bomb case. If that theory holds, the next creator who posts a technical explainer is one saved file away from the same indictment. [More]
Much more dangerous is the crucible ideology that formed Shamsud-Din Jabbar, and the First Amendment applies there, too.
I see DOJ is still being bipolar.
If not, Harmeet would be defending this guy, except it looks like her permitted scope of operations is politically calculated.
“Arms that bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… lie at the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, and a State may not prohibit them,” the brief concludes. “A prohibition imposed because those arms are useful for the common defense is contrary to the Second Amendment’s text, purpose, and history.” [More]
How could a Militia with inferior weapons to a standing army fulfill the intent of the Founders as “being necessary to the security of a free State”? This paves the way for more than AR-15s.
This is the brief I’ve been waiting for.
“Please show me anywhere in the U.S.C. or C.F.R. that rate of fire is regulated in any way? Only method of fire is regulated. If it fires more than once per function of the trigger it’s highly regulated. If not, there is NO regulation.” [More]
Just because they act like they have the power to do something doesn’t mean they actually do.
After explaining why United States v. Miller protects arms with a reasonable relationship to militia efficiency, the brief declares that the “general consensus” is that automatic weapons are not protected. [More]
Is he a friend?
Or does he see which way the wind is blowing and is trying to secure the main infringement?
“That is the focus I would bring to an amicus brief: establishing a constitutional principle that not only prevents ‘military’ characteristics from becoming a constitutional liability, but makes them an affirmative basis for protection.” [More]
The Framers put the prefatory clause in there for a reason.
“Hoses against weapons. Trembling behind hatches. Everything but standing up on your sea-legs and fighting. How about just opening fire on them?” [More]
Look at me! I’m the captain now!
The need to apply consistent criteria is not only a matter of basic fairness, but of law. The release of requested records, without disclosing exempt information, will help ensure that. [More]
Think of it as a good first step, but remember what they say about a journey of a thousand miles.
Ninth Circuit Forced to Deliver Rare Second Amendment Win Against Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’ [More]
Think of it more like a crucifix and less like a stake through the heart.
There’s another lesson here for gun owners that’s every bit as important as not consenting to having your car searched (don’t physically resist, just make it clear you don’t consent and fight it later with an attorney who can argue probable cause): Don’t talk to the police. [More]
It’s hard to “back the blue” when their seemingly benign conversation in every compelled interaction is to get you to say something they can use against you.
So, say the Democrats do well in the midterms and go on to retake the White House. What will that mean for all the progress made on advancing the Second Amendment over the past few years? [More]
What will it take to undo all the progress that’s been made on the Second Amendment in recent years? Stay home on November 3 and find out.
May we assume those circumstances to get the replica to DOJ HQ include “Only Ones” exemptions? The FOIA response doesn’t say. [More]
Just don’t you try getting one of these if you live in DC…
A federal judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, ruled without trial that foster homes and in-home daycare centers are sensitive areas and that guns can be regulated in these private residences. [More]
With “Only Ones” exempted , of course, because they’re demonstrably more trustworthy than you and me, no?
One of the arguments pre-born drawing and quartering trolls routinely pull on pro-life advocates is to chastise them for not stepping up and adopting, as if it’s their responsibility to make a lifetime commitment over the irresponsible choices of others, and as if that’s a better solution than holding people accountable for their own poor decisions. But in cases where some might be willing to step up, this just slams another barrier in their faces to discourage it, and also perpetuates the lie that is citizen disarmament, making both responsible adopters and dependent adoptees demonstrably less safe.
Figure, robed cud-chewer Sue Myerscough was unanimously confirmed.
Looking at the work Stamboulieh has done on gun owners’ behalf over the years, those who know him have full confidence that he is not switching sides but will now be positioned to be even more effective at advancing justice. [More]
View this as a positive development. Even though I’m losing my lawyer, I do.
By requiring all attendees to enter via a newly built enclosed exhibit hall, fair management is essentially saying, “Hold our beer. [More]
I may go just to establish standing.
Nichols’ argument exposes the circular nature of “common use.” Suppose the government bans a newly developed arm before millions of citizens can purchase it. Years later, the government defends the ban by arguing that the weapon is not commonly owned. Under that reasoning, the unconstitutional law creates the factual condition used to justify itself. The government bans the arm because it is uncommon, and the arm remains uncommon because the government banned it. [More]
Not just Nichols’ argument:
Guns allowed at Ohio State Fair but not in buildings; BFA’s Rieck calls it ‘ridiculous’ [More]
My AmmoLand piece reposted, which allows more to see it. I’m contemplating a follow-up with a county fair that says “Hold our beer.”
Suppressors removed from the Munitions List will instead be placed on the Commerce Control List and regulated under the Export Administration Regulations. [More]
And the delegated authority for either…?
It’s instructive as to the end goals of what the prohibitionists term “commonsense gun safety laws,” that is, a monopoly of violence held by those who would rule with an iron fist. It’s for exactly those reasons that the Second Amendment was enacted in the first place. [More]
The collectivist monsters who demand discarding the Constitution and disarming the rest of us hide songs they used to publish threatening to “kill [us] all with knives and guns” as a key objective of their “revolution.”
“Fair patrons are not permitted to bring guns inside any structures, including barns, food establishments and concert venues.” [More]
What is the dominant, supposedly “pro gun” Ohio GOP afraid of?