Denying qualified immunity in these cases could mitigate much of the resistance to Bruen. [More]
I just had me a Ruk epiphany:
[Via Michael G]
Category: Legal
Get Serious
Supreme Court’s Alito and Thomas warn new gun control law raises ‘serious’ 2A questions [More]
Wake me when they warn about serious consequences for courts that thumb their noses.
[Via Dan Gifford]
We’re the Only Ones Crippling Enough
Abusing the Abuser?
Mother of fatally shot restaurant robber says customer who fired multiple rounds ‘abused’ her son: ‘Why didn’t you stop? … He was dead already … That hurts.’ [More]
I’ve had my own questions about the shoot, but there’s one indisputable truth you just can’t get around: If you don’t want someone to shoot you in self-defense, don’t try to rob them at gunpoint, fake or otherwise.
[Via Robert J]
SAF Alerts
Speaking of Pieces Of Sh*t
Supplemental Benefits
Stroke of the Pen, Law of the Land of Lincoln
With the stroke of his pen, Governor JB Pritzker made Illinois the ninth state to ban assault-style weapons. [More]
So how soon until we see that challenge we’re told groups are “gearing up for“?
UPDATE (Via President Non_Fudd)
IL State Police sent this out to all IL FFL’s last night
And if you disobey, they’ll be happy to bring up to lethal force to bear to ensure that you comply.
Not all agree:
More at Mom-At-Arms.
A Question of Overkill
Houston Taqueria Shooting: Legally Justified Killing or Simply an Execution? [More]
Yep. If he’s going to be hanged, the kill shot is what will do it.
[Via Doc]
That’s All I Can Stands, I Can’t Stands No More
What Exactly is Legal Standing? And What Does It Mean in Gun Control Litigation? [Watch]
The tyrants know that if you have to get arrested first in order to file a challenge, most people with families, property, and jobs to lose will pass.
Shame, that, right, Mr. Kennedy?
[Via Jess]
Just Like the Founders Intended
Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and its allies have filed a brief supporting their earlier motion for summary judgment in a federal challenge of Illinois’ ban on concealed carry by young adults in a case known as Meyer v. Raoul. [More]
Remember all those laws from the Founding era making it a crime for 18-20-year-olds to have a gun?
Me neither.
There’s an App for That
World’s first ‘robot lawyer’ will be defending a human in court next month [More]
Then on to robot politicians…
Standing Room Only
Judge Claims “Lack of Standing” in Second Amendment Public Transportation Case … In effect, Judge Moss is stating a plaintiff will need to be arrested for violating the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying concealed weapons in order to challenge the ban. [More]
Who thinks the Obama nominee rides the Metro into work?
[Via Dan Gifford]
New York State of Mind
The State of New York is Still Fighting the Bruen Decision [More]
Herschel brings us up to date on Antonyuk v Satan’s Minions, including New York’s insulting brief and Stephen Stamboulieh’s authoritative response.
I have to find out what SCOTUS’s options are for slapping inferiors defying hierarchical precedent down.
Hatchet Job
A Larger Point
Franklin Armory and the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. (FRAC) have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over what the plaintiffs allege are wrongful classification of firearms and regulatory delays. [More]
That presupposes there are rightful classifications and acceptable review times.
[Via Jess]
Muster Call
A federal lawsuit supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition has been filed in New York, challenging that state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” [More]
I’ve been arguing not to forget “core purpose” in 2A actions, so I find this a good add:
The firearms at issue in this case are the sorts of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes that law-abiding people possess at home by the millions. And they are, moreover, exactly what they would bring to service in militia duty, should such be necessary.
Never Mind
Received via email from Tully Rinckey PLLC:
After careful consideration and over a year after it was implemented, the Department of Defense has decided to no longer enforce the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for service members. Despite the fact that less than 100 service members died from COVID-19 since the pandemic started, many active duty, Guard and Reserve members who refused the COVID-19 vaccine faced removal from the service. This impacted military readiness and those who faced removal now need to understand their rights and how they can legally proceed with the reinstatement process. [More]
Or in the words of Emily Litella:
I guess that’s one less concern for gun-owning servicemembers to worry about, but the questions that remain are “Why the sudden big turnaround?” and “Why haven’t there been screaming headlines and demands for answers?”
On Hold Until Further Notice
Oregon judge extends ban on new gun law’s background checks… [More]
And if you don’t think the “Charleston Loophole” is a “dangerous gap,” just ask Google!
Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One Before
He said lawyers for the federal government admitted in court to having at least 400 pages of “potentially responsive” documents but are now saying they can “neither confirm nor deny” whether the records exist. [More]
Consider that the default position.
