Notes from the Resistance
Who wants to spend years and substantial effort to force a correction and not even be able to recover costs? Who has those kinds of resources? [More]
Here’s another huge advantage that rights deniers with unlimited state resources have over gun owners of limited means.
A federal appeals court has restored most of New Jersey’s new gun control laws limiting firearms in sensitive public places after overturning a lower court ruling blocking many restrictions while a legal challenge plays out. [More]
Here’s the order. If someone gets killed as a result of it, I wonder how much sleep the judges will lose.
Krause was appointed by Obama and Chung was appointed by Biden. The one that concerns me here is Porter, appointed by Trump.
[Via Jess]
7th Circuit reverses Northern District judgment, reinstates indictment for man for answering falsely on firearm application [More]
Fortunately, we now know that all he’ll get is a slap on the wrist, right?
[Via Jess]
What Part of ‘In Common Use’ Don’t You Understand?: How Courts Have Defied Heller in Arms-ban Cases — Again [More]
What I still don’t understand: What if it’s not “in common use” by the public, but is by the military/LE, like post-’86 select-fire rifles?
I know what I say the answer is. I’d like to see it clearly stated by someone with legal gravitas and then challenged in court.
[Via Jess]
The state of Florida never provided medically necessary gender-affirming care to Duane Owen — causing her enormous suffering and violating her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment for the more than 30 years she was in state custody. [More]
I wonder how much enormous suffering, rights violation, and cruel and unusual punishment this monster inflicted on the women he raped and murdered.
The ACLU certainly is showing us what it’s all about, and based on the ratioing, the more people see it, the better it appears to be.
[Via Michael G]
The County Attorney and law enforcement have charged Walker with violating MN 609.667 because his privately made firearms do not have serial numbers on them – despite not being required under federal law – and, in our opinion, not needed under Minnesota statutes. The judge in the case has disagreed. [More]
His mother has started a legal defense fund.
You can find out more by selecting “Case Search” for
Case Number: 71-CR-22-923
(Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Matthew Walker Anderson)
I’d love to tear into this but my plate is full and it will be a few days–hopefully, someone will be able to give us more information before then, and maybe convince one of the gun groups to provide legal assistance.
[Via WiscoDave]
House strikes blow against federal regulations, votes to overturn controversial Supreme Court ruling – The Supreme Court might strike down the precedent itself later this year [More]
That’s what it will take because you know the Senate is never going to stand for this.
Be nice when they do so I can get my damn bump stock back.
There is a nefarious group that calls itself The 65 Project that has as its goal to intimidate lawyers into not representing Trump or anyone associated with him. They have threatened to file bar charges against any such lawyers. [More]
I wonder what they eat for breakfast.
[Via Michael G]
Do Your Jury Duty to Fight Tyranny [More]
He’s a little light on judging the law.
Me, I’m all for sticking beans up my nose.
[Via Michael G]
Third Circuit, En Banc, Range v. Lombardo: Not All Modern Felons Lose Second Amendment Rights … Several judges dissented. [More]
Which ones?
Who nominated them?
Who voted to confirm them?
I could go find out but it would take time I don’t have right now.
It would be nice if there were a website that provided judicial ratings and a way to hold those who enabled them politically accountable. It would be even more useful if it also politically scaled and rated inferior court judges running in “nonpartisan” elections and showed who backs them so their partisan allegiances could be inferred.
I guess I’m talking something like Ballotpedia on steroids. Too bad the name “Judicial Watch” is taken, although come to think of it, they’d be the perfect ones to take this on.
Illinois’s legal brief seeks to defend their recently-enacted “assault weapons” ban by arguing that the lethality of these semi-automatic firearms means that they may be banned consistent with the 2nd Amendment. Mark Smith discusses this lethality argument here. [Watch]
Because the last thing you want to do when fighting armed attackers is kill them!
Be sure to also open up Illinois’ brief and Smith’s review on Beccaria, linked under the video.
[Via Jess]
“We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances. Its reference to arms does not apply only to those arms in existence in the 18th Century… just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Thus even though the Second Amendment’s definition of arms is fixed according to the historical understanding that that general definition covers modern…modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. [Watch]
Exactly right. What I’m having trouble connecting the dots on is this:
What is that burden that the government has to bear? The government has to come forth to prove that the arms that they want to ban are not in common use.
Ignoring the first 13 words and focusing exclusively on self-defense leaves the door open to saying post-’86 machine guns are not in common use. It also means that new technological developments that the government reserves for itself will never be.
That is what I’d like to see Mr. Smith elaborate on. I believe he’s one of the few who could.
As an aside, I think the first Republican presidential candidate who promised to nominate him if any Supreme Court openings happen would gain a huge advantage with gun owners.
[Via Stephen I]
The state has been relying on “expert witnesses” who are attempting to prove that early firearms do not have the capacity of modern firearms. Why you need “expert” witnesses to prove this is hard to understand. But the notion that our constitution only protects things in existence 200 years ago is odd when the argument is taking place in a courtroom filled with computers and flat screen TV’s, fed by the internet, and protected by metal detectors. [More]
Add a Catch-22 on “ripeness” and you get a feel for what they’re up against.
Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to hold fast on denyng a quorum, so “Attaboys” to them.
