Category: citizen disarmament

Hush, Hush

Ohio House Bill 331 and Ohio Senate Bill 214 propose revisions to the Ohio Revised Code, eliminating suppressors and mufflers from the definition of dangerous ordnance and removing language that mandates suppressor registration under the NFA. [More]

I guess it doesn’t hurt to build redundancy into a system.

I’m just the type who thinks “shall not be infringed’ oughta cover everything, in Everytown…

At Least Their Consistency is Inconsistent

We hold that § 5-133(b)(2) is, in substance, a law prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons and, as such, is consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. [More]

Then they should have no problem coming up with an upheld parallel from the time of ratification. Either that or they’re just robed frauds.

And it doesn’t change a basic truth, does it?

[Via Antigone]

Tangentially-Related UPDATE

New York says hold our beer. [Watch]

[Via Jess]

Democrats Triggered

Blue States Sue ATF and National Association for Gun Rights – 16 Anti-gun Attorneys General seek to block agreement to return Illegally seized triggers [More]

It will be interesting to see if competitor rice bowl groups put their historic hostility to NAGR to the side and support them in this.

Get yours while supplies last!

[Via Jess]

An Age-Old Question

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), joined by New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate (NJFOS), have filed a lawsuit in district court challenging New Jersey’s ban on adults under the age of 21 from purchasing, owning or carrying handguns and handgun ammunition. [More]

Y’know, if Bondi’s 2A Task Force included gun owner representation, they’d be able to advise Justice on how best to support this.

What They Mean by ‘Commonsense Gun Safety Laws’

The Exigency for Stricter Gun Control Legislation in the United States of America: Why the Constitution’s Second Amendment Provision for the “Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms” is Obsolete in our Contemporary Society [More]

I trust no one here is surprised…?

[Via Alan Chwick]

Train of Thought

Smith doesn’t expect a win at this stage. With a panel of judges appointed by Reagan, Trump, and Biden—but leaning against gun rights—he predicts the court may rule against plaintiffs either on standing or the merits. But that just sets the stage for a bigger battle ahead—potentially at the Supreme Court. [More]

Oh, well then, victory is assured with those eager beavers!

Bloomberg Funded Site Argues Gun Control Part of 2nd Amendment History and Tradition

Unable to refute reality, what’s a gun prohibitionist to do but try and confuse the issue? [More]

So what if the Founders never envisioned the “boyfriend loophole”? If you can have a “living Constitution,” why not a “living Second Amendment.”

Libertad y Orden, Opposite Day ‘Progressive’-Style

The Attorney General’s Office, which is investigating the shooting, said the senator received two gunshot wounds in the attack, which wounded two others. The statement from the office said a 15-year-old boy was arrested at the scene with a firearm. [More]

But…but…but licensing, registration, age restrictions, no guns at political events, no carrying in Bogotá…

Yeah, about that…

No wonder the political left pushes “gun control”…

[Via Michael G]

The Long and Short of It

NRA-ILA Petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to NFA Restrictions on Short-Barreled Rifles [More]

Pretty long on “common use” popularity and pretty short on core purpose except to address militia controls, as opposed to militia necessity.

Now all SCOTUS has to do is… nothing.

[Via Jess]

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

[More]

Talk about sugar-coating: Good grief.

You know what would work even better than “YOUR help”? Getting Pam Bondi and her ATF guy to submit well documented statements of support.

If gun owner reps had a seat at the table, they’d be able to finesse that. But the ones in a position to demand that apparently think continuing to solicit craps shoot funds is the better way to go.

Which History? Which Sources?

Gun rights groups frequently call on courts to exclude other time periods. That’s because there were fewer regulations — at least regulations written down as statute — compared to the latter half of the 1800s, leaving fewer historical analogues to pick from. Focusing on the Founding Era also ignores crucial legal developments in the intervening decades. [More]

Yeah, that’s because later infringements weren’t what was agreed to and ratified.

These creatures are such shameless f_ing liars.

[Via Michael G]