Category: Justice Department

A Case for Clemency?

He may have been doing business with a cartel front in Tucson, but all Reynolds’ own businesses appear to have been legitimate. And, as Reynolds said, when he declined to become an informant, the feds turned on him. [More]

Or as an earlier report speculates:

“A black NRA member sitting in a prison for terrorists may be the missing link in Fast and Furious”

Beats me. First I’m hearing of it. Nothing about the guy on SSI, either. Which just means there’s plenty not known and very little incentive for most to pursue things.

Regardless, there appear to be many loose ends and questions that cry for reopening this case. I wonder if those calling for that have made a serious effort to get a dialog going with Harmeet Dhillon?

Friends of the Court

The Department of Justice has filed a brief with the Seventh Circuit in support of our win against the Illinois “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans in our Harrel v. Raoul lawsuit. [More]

I got the brief over the weekend and am working a write-up.

Also on the same case, 35 AG’s have signed onto supporting the lawsuit.

[Via Jess]

I Got Them SAPA Blues?

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. [More]

So, did Hacchim, Yaakov, Michael, and Jeffrey not get the memo?

Or does acknowledgment that “the United States will not oppose when this case returns to district court” mean they don’t want to cede procedural precedent, but they’re going to stop fighting to force cooperation with infringements?

Who’s qualified to weigh in and explain?

[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.

Hold the Gratitude Until There’s an Answer

I would appreciate your help resolving this situation promptly on a statewide basis without the need for litigation. [More]

Yeah, well, what you’d appreciate and what connected Democrat power player Sheriff Sean Kilkenny will do could be two very different things.

Say he says “No,” and then ties things up in court for years and at the end of the trail the Supreme Court pulls another Snope. Why shouldn’t he take his chances and tell her to go for it? Especially since it’s not his money, the Democrats could very well be back in the national saddle by then, and he could emerge as the scrappy warrior who took on the feds and beat ’em…

I Have Some Good News and Some Bad News

From the Department’s perspective, regardless of whether the Second Amendment requires an individualized restoration process for persons subject to 18 U.S.C. 922(g), 18 U.S.C. 925(c) reflects an appropriate avenue to restore firearm rights to certain individuals who no longer warrant such disability based on a combination of the nature of their past criminal activity and their subsequent and current law-abiding behavior while screening out others for whom full restoration of firearm rights would not be appropriate. [More]

The first part is fine. We need to understand how more than a select few can qualify.

As for those “others,” when are they going to learn?

Follow instructions under “ADDRESSES” to submit your comment.

[Via Jess]

The Line Gets Longer

For far too long, New York Democrats have weaponized state power to systematically dismantle the rights of law-abiding gun owners. That’s why I sent a letter to AG Bondi to investigate New York State’s persistent and unconstitutional assault on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens. [More]

Welcome to the party, pal.

[Via Jess]

A Modest Proposal

The NFA is constitutional because it’s “a modest burden” and not a ban [More]

The Second Amendment does not say “shall not be banned.” It says “shall not be infringed.” Even modestly.

Unless you’re one of the “smartest people in the room” who buy into the Trump/Bondi DOJ is playing super secret 3D chess with court rules that they can’t tell us about, and it will all work out in the end, honest…

Then ask why they’re not pushing SBRs.

With Her Own Petard

“Representative LaMonica McIver assaulted, impeded, and interfered with law enforcement in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111 (a)(1)”… [More]

So, if convicted, will Gunsense Candidate LaMonica now be a “prohibited person”? And now that she’s been indicted, will any guns she might own be impounded?

A Little Help Here?

Think they’ll tell her to write her Democrat state reps?

[Via Jess]

A Little Something for Everyone?

Department of Justice Announces Settlement of Litigation Between the Federal Government and Rare Breed Triggers… The settlement includes agreed-upon conditions that significantly advance public safety with respect to FRTs, including that Rare Breed will not develop or design FRTs for use in any pistol and will enforce its patents to prevent infringement that could threaten public safety. Rare Breed also agrees to promote the safe and responsible use of its products. [More]

It’s a yuge step.

It’s also not “shall not be infringed.”

If you want more details…

Related UPDATES

And I Missed It

We’re right here [More]

I said “at this writing” and it wasn’t up when I submitted the article. And DOJ did it before on April 25.

That said, I trust one “tweet” (what do they call them these days?) won’t be it for you? Because I still see nothing on your website under “News,” “Press Releases,” or your blog.

And the three majors are still saying nothing.

I don’t get it with them. Or I do and hope I’m wrong.

Verified by MonsterInsights