Category: Legal

Giving the Devil His Due

Prosecution in Apple’s iPads-for-Concealed-Firearms-Licenses Bribery Case Can Go Forward [More]

But all they were trying to do was protect Tim Cook…

Jeez, you’d think the way they’re acting the law applies to “progressive” billionaires just like it does to us little guys…

[Via Michael G]

Complaint Against DOJ Seeks Documents on NICS Permanent Entry Consent

The complaint was filed by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh on behalf of this correspondent to compel the Department to produce information regarding “consent to a permanent entry in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).” [More]

Expanding the rules without lawfully delegated authority and based just on their own say-so seems to be the way with these autocratic functionaries.

Runaway Slave

She continued, “So I’m going to go ahead and find that you are at risk to commit additional felonies and a potential risk to flee the jurisdiction.” [More]

Making an example of the black upstart who wants nothing to do with the plantation before others get the same idea, eh? That must explain the absence of outrage by the middlemen.

“Additional”…?

Did she just publicly poison the pool by saying he’s already committed the felony charges he’s on trial for?

Pressing Onward

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of the “Final Rule” issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives redefining frames and receivers as firearms, have filed an appellee’s brief in the case, known as VanDerStok v. Garland. [More]

There’s a word for a government that can just assign itself new powers when it feels like it.

To Tell the Truth

Always take people at their word when they say what they want to disarm you. They want to kill you. They want to do bad things to you. So when you see before the United States Supreme Court in the United States v Rahimi case, statements that say we have no right to keep in bear arms, we have no right to possess firearms, we have no right to carry firearms, we have no right to use firearms to protect ourselves, you must take these words at face value. You must take them as truth that this is what the other side truly believes. We don’t have a right to self-defense we don’t have a right to guns. We have to be disarmed. Take them at their word. [Watch]

Conversely, don’t believe a word they say when they claim no one is talking about taking your guns.

[Via Jess]

Tangentially-Related:

…the reality is they’re all basically for more gun control what’s interesting is some of the briefs are actually embracing laws at the time of our founding that had racist and odious and bigoted foundations upon which they rest, and nevertheless some of the anti-gunners are embracing these… [Watch]

Disingenuously tryin g to separate the racist motivations from the act of disarmament simply means they want us all to be slaves.

[Via 1Gat]

Flag Down

This new initiative is called “Capture the Flag,” and it will focus on abuses and mis-application of “Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO)” statutes which have been adopted by 21 states and the District of Columbia. [More]

Their very existence is an abuse.

And there’s only one solution that nobody appears incentivized to implement.

Sensitive to Tyranny

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive places” statute have filed a response brief to the state’s appeal. The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin. [More]

So “rights-free zones” weren’t part of the compact?

Goodbye Columbus — for Now…

Ohio can enforce a state law intended to ensure uniform firearms regulations across localities. That’s the ruling a unanimous three-judge panel of the state’s Tenth District Court of Appeals handed down on Tuesday. The decision reverses a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court judge to the city of Columbus, Ohio last year. [More]

Of course, child-exploiting City Attorney Zach Klein “vowed to continue fighting the case.”

It’s not his money.

[Via JG]

A Presumption of Guilt

The California Legislative Women’s Caucus called on the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to uphold domestic abuse restraining orders as it reviews a case that could permit domestic abusers the right to carry guns. [More]

If they’re proven, under full due process, to be too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, what are they doing out? And if they haven’t been, characterizing them all as “domestic abusers” in the very first sentence just shows there’s no lie or manipulation these people won’t use to disarm their countrymen, and makes fair the question “What the real motive of those behind this?”

What does it say about the Caucus’ commitment to DEI if every one of them is a “biological woman”? And why aren’t we hearing objections from the seven Republicans?

Traitors Attack Bill of Rights

The lawsuit, brought Tuesday by the nonprofit group Everytown for Gun Safety and exclusively obtained by NBC News, names multiple defendants, including YouTube and Reddit, online spaces where the shooter was allegedly radicalized… [More]

If trying to radicalize is the crime, where do I go to plead guilty?

Figures, the “legal authority” they consulted is the “distinguished” Robert Spitzer, who never saw a gun he didn’t want to grab.

Figures he’d also eviscerate the First Amendment…

I’d like to see the defendants countersue the useful idiot plaintiffs as individuals.

[Via Bluesgal]

Verified by MonsterInsights