Category: citizen disarmament

I Confess This One Troubles Me

Ninth Circuit Panel Sends California “Assault Weapons” Ban Challenge Back to District Court, so the District Court can reconsider it in light of the Supreme Court’s new Bruen precedent. [More]

I don’t see where “self-defense” alone will cut it without a strong core purpose argument.

I do see this:

The firearms that the law in question prohibits are, in virtually every state of the Union, exactly the sorts of lawful weapons in common use that law abiding people possess at home for lawful purposes; and exactly what they would bring to service in militia duty should such cause be necessary.

Here’s the case history thus far.

If this goes to SCOTUS, and it probably will, we’ll see if any briefs expand on that, and then if the high court will hear it.

We Could Tell You But Then We’d Have to Kill You. Which Isn’t Off the Table if You Defy Us.

Rand Paul Says Gun Control Bill Was Kept ‘Secret’ And Senators Not Allowed Time To Read It [More]

Where have we heard that before?

With the “red flag” provisions, that makes perverse sense.

UPDATE

And who’d have guessed the bill contains surprises that don’t appear to have anything to do with guns but plenty to do with pharmacy benefit manager lobbyists.

[Via Mack H]

Close Enough for Government Work

The California Department of Justice’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal went live on Monday with publicly-accessible files that include identifying information for those who have concealed carry permits. The leaked information includes the person’s full name, home address, date of birth, and date their permit was issued. The data also shows the type of permit issued, indicating if the permit holder is a member of law enforcement or a judge. [More]

Aside from showing what total dolts these parasites are, and that any registration scheme makes listees exposed and vulnerable, the data could be useful in a civil rights action to show minority underrepresentation. After all, who’s more racist than anti-armed citizen “progressives”?

[Via WiscoDave]

The Short Answer

Repeal the Second Amendment: ‘No one has the absolute right to own any weapon they want’ [More]

No. Your move.

The shorter answer is two words and starts with “F.”

Some morons aren’t worth trying to educate on Cruikshank and Heller’s recognition of a preexisting right because you know they’ll just move on to the next idiot objection.

[Via Mike F]

From Hell’s Heart I Stab at Thee

Although the majority’s ruling impacts our century-old justifiable need requirement for carrying firearms, it does not change any other aspect of New Jersey’s public carry law. To be clear: Carrying a handgun without a permit is still illegal in this state, and all other requirements for obtaining a carry permit still apply. [More]

And like our totalitarian counterparts in California, we will continue to throw every obstacle that will take years to clear that we can think of in the way.

It’s called being a Faubus.

Same as It Ever Was

Such discretionary and capricious gun laws would allow corrupt cops to disarm rival gangs that threatened Tammany Hall’s authority or undermined its political interests. Big Tim’s cronies could use the law to punish business owners who didn’t pay protection money or deny entire neighborhoods the ability of self-defense. [More]

Gun laws: Those with the guns make the laws.

[H/T JPFO]

Speaking of Serious Misfires

The Supreme Court’s gun ruling is a serious misfire [More]

This from a Vichycon stooge who advocates:

Gun control advocates who want to square their policy preferences with the Constitution should squarely face the need to deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrassing amendment.

and:

Republicans Better Off Losing by Landslide

Funny he should mention “The Second Amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights with a preamble” without acknowledging the Bill of Rights itself has a Preamble that makes clear what Founding intent was:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

It has “restrictive clauses” against the government.

[Via Mack H]

Some Good News and Some Bad News

California Attorney General says “effective immediately, issuing authorities should no longer require proof of good cause for the issuance of a public-carry license.” [More]

These weasels always have big “buts”:

Don’t “Back the blue” or ATF or…? So much for “respect for the law.” How is being against fetus butchering or drag queen story hour for preschoolers “respect[ful] for the rights of others? If you’re against “sanctuary” for illegals (hell, if you even call them “illegals”) or “critical race theory” school curricula, and BLM Marxists, how is that an “absence of racism”? Plus, we all know anyone smeared as a “white nationalist extremist Nazi” is the greatest threat to “our democracy.” Just ask the U.S. Department of Justice!

Page 3 shows all the arbitrary and politically -exploitable “good moral character” outs they’re sending signals to impose, so look for delays and denials that will take more drawn-out court cases to wrangle out.

I wouldn’t be calling the “Supreme Court victory” a slam dunk just yet. If there’s one thing leftists are good at, it’s weaponizing the law against their enemies while ignoring it themselves.

[Via several of you]

Verified by MonsterInsights