Category: Legal

Unlawful ‘Commerce’

But Mexico’s lawyers argued the law only bars lawsuits over injuries that occur in the United States and does not shield the seven manufacturers and one distributor it sued from liability over the trafficking of guns to Mexican criminals. [More]

That’s right, and if they’d done what the U.S. government, in willful collusion with corrupt Mexican government, military, and law enforcement officials continues to do, they’d be liable.

It takes a special kind of traitor to argue otherwise in court.

[Via Jess]

Just the Ammo They Need

The State does not dispute that California’s unworkable ammunition purchasing laws have stopped thousands of people who are legally eligible to buy ammunition from buying it. But, amazingly, the State is now arguing that the case should not move forward because CRPA does not have legal “standing” to challenge the law because its members have not themselves encountered these problems. That’s nonsense, of course. But to assist CRPA in demonstrating how the law continues to block eligible people, particularly CRPA members, from buying ammunition, CRPA needs declarations from members and supporters evidencing any problems you have recently faced when trying to buy ammunition. [More]

Give them all the ammunition they need to blow this case wide open.

What Gun Owners Elected Them For

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that banning large capacity magazines and requiring a permit to purchase a gun falls in line with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety”… [More]

Thanks, Donald Trump and Senate Republicans!

[Via bondmen]

Just Like the Framers Intended

If it sounds like these authors, Guha Krishnamurthi (University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law) and Peter Salib (University of Houston Law Center) are hinting that cops just violate second amendment rights under the color of law based on the protections police enjoy virtually everywhere and in most, if not all, circumstances, you’d be wrong. They say, “The officer’s justifications may conflict with the federal courts’ understanding of Bruen or the Second Amendment—perhaps flagrantly.” [More]

Funny… if they’re going to override Bruen, they don’t cite any Founding Era text, history, and traditions for enforcer supremacy over citizens’ unalienable rights…

Speaking of which, you’d think ol’ Guha would know better than to side with the Red Coats…

A Good First Step

Wrong Thinking is Punishable; Right Thinking Will Be as Quickly Rewarded. You Will Find It an Effective Combination.

Restricting the Government from Speaking to Tech Companies Will Spread Disinformation and Harm Democracy [More]

Hey, we could be East Korea!

At least that’s what the guy who said “I personally hate gun violence and wouldn’t mind having all guns confiscated” believes.

[Via Steve T]

But No One’s Talking About Taking Your Guns Redux

“We’re not going to get uniformity in this country unless there are enough lawyers who will bring on these cases – and these are very difficult cases – where it becomes unsustainable for the gun manufacturers to defend these,” Romanucci said. “Any time when there’s a mass shooting where you see a pattern, it is my belief that if there’s a viable claim, that a lawsuit should be brought so that it’s unsustainable for the gun manufacturers to defend.” [More]

It’s like they’re trying to create a talking points narrative or something…

[Via Sweet Babboo]

Just Like the Founders Used to Ban?

The Biden administration says its Defending new restriction on the possession of pistols with stabilizing braces parallels colonial times. [More]

Do they really want to go down that road?

This part bugged me:

He argued sawed-off shotguns are wildly inaccurate when fired, whereas braces make pistols more stable and accurate.

Does “our side” really want to go down THAT road?

Speaking of Intellectually Flawed

A federal judge denied a motion for preliminary injunction today in a lawsuit challenging New York’s “places of worship” gun ban, saying that the Bruen test “is considered by many to be an impractical and intellectually flawed approach” [More]

You know what else is intellectually flawed?

Allowing these subversive bastards to be confirmed with a voice vote so Senators can’t be held accountable and still maintain their “A” ratings.

[Via Jess]

Monster Makers Chaining Their Creations

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral arguments about whether a Pennsylvania law banning 18-20 year olds from having firearms in public when a government declares an emergency violates the 2nd Amendment. [Watch]

At the very least, it violates U.S. Code.

You have to wonder what kind of treasonous, mad Democrat would demand and defend this, and the answer is the same kind whose policies have made the type of 18 -20-year-olds making daily headlines in Philadelphia inevitable.

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights