Notes from the Resistance
“The more effective an arm is for the purposes for which a militia would require arms, the harder it should be to argue that its effectiveness somehow removes it from constitutional protection.” [More]
The Framers knew that and we know that. The tyranny-minded who want to ban them know that, too.
“Arms that bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… lie at the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, and a State may not prohibit them,” the brief concludes. “A prohibition imposed because those arms are useful for the common defense is contrary to the Second Amendment’s text, purpose, and history.” [More]
How could a Militia with inferior weapons to a standing army fulfill the intent of the Founders as “being necessary to the security of a free State”? This paves the way for more than AR-15s.
This is the brief I’ve been waiting for.
“That is the focus I would bring to an amicus brief: establishing a constitutional principle that not only prevents ‘military’ characteristics from becoming a constitutional liability, but makes them an affirmative basis for protection.” [More]
The Framers put the prefatory clause in there for a reason.
Me-can I buy individual parts? State-yeah, for repairs. Do I have to prove I have the gun first? No…. So I can just buy all of the parts in a build kit individually in the same cart and purchase just not as a single item….. [More]
While HB 1240 obviously targets complete firearms, its language is written broadly enough to ensnare PARTS [Emphasis Added] and kits that could be used to assemble a banned weapon. This is a huge minefield for online sellers.
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, but if I were going to try a workaround, I’d find a way that didn’t leave a trail of invoice breadcrumbs.
And naturally, what would any militia disarmament edict be without a standing army exemption?
The law does have carve-outs for sales to law enforcement agencies and active-duty military personnel who are purchasing for official use.
Just like the Framers intended, no?
[Via WiscoDave]
‘It’ll Be Violent’: Chicago Teachers Union Hosts Israel-Hating Communist Convention Where Radicals Call for Sabotaging US Ports, Backing Iran [More]
If only the Founders had envisioned some kind of deterrent to insurrection…
“Chicago Teachers Union”: Your tax dollars at work, aided and abetted by the Democrat Party.
[Via Michael G]
JONATHAN TURLEY: James Talarico’s defense of gun control leaves out a key word… The reason, he declared, is that the Second Amendment expressly embraces gun control by referring to the right to bear arms as “well regulated.” [More]
But, of course, that’s simply not true.
So why is it so many Texans are willing to vote in a demonstrable liar?
Lancaster County Circuit Court Judge John Martin issued a preliminary injunction on June 25 in the Crump v. Katz complaint against Senate Bill 749, Virginia’s “assault weapon” and magazine ban, blocking statewide enforcement until Dec. 31. The law was set to go into effect July 1. [More]
This summary was submitted before the news broke that NRA won a second injunction.
Revised to update case name, defendants and plaintiffs, and added notice at start about injunction being denied/current case status. [More]
In a ruling issued Thursday, the Spotsylvania Circuit Court denied a request for preliminary injunction in the Curtis v. Katz challenge to Virginia’s semiautomatic firearm/magazine ban. [More]
Even though the judge acknowledges “irreparable harm” to the Plaintiffs, he thinks more damage will be done if gun-banning Democrats don’t get their way.
The hearing has been held on Curtis v. Katz, the Virginia Constitution Article I, Section 13-based militia challenge to the “assault weapon” ban.
I’m not finding results yet on Google News search, but have been able to find case progress by going to VA Courts, selecting the Circuit Court Case Information link, picking Spotsylvania Circuit Court from the drop down menu, and entering CL26002454-00 in the Case Number field.
That really doesn’t tell us anything I haven’t written about, but there is a link for Case Documents that shows all the filings from May 19 through to today, which unfortunately don’t open up to show us the details.
There’s also a Reddit discussion that seems as up to date as anything.
I’ll keep looking and if you know anything please inform us via Comments, below.
I should know more for sure tomorrow, as I’ve been invited to a Zoom press call with the counsel of record and others at 1 Eastern.
IMPORTANT CORRECTION: THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AS CURTIS V. KATZ (PREVIOUSLY SAID “HOLLOWAY.”) AMMOLAND HAS UPDATED MY REPORT AND I HAVE SENT NOTICE TO FIREARMS NEWS WITH AN ARTICLE UPDATE REQUEST.
I’m told there is the perception the hearing with Judge Glover, Spotsylvania County Circuit Court, went well and the expectation is he will issue a ruling tomorrow.
See:
“Plaintiffs challenge these prohibitions solely under the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia. They do not rest their case on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor on the individual right to keep and bear arms also embodied in Article I, Section 13,” the complaint declares. “Their argument is simpler and more fundamental: the militia clause guarantees the existence of a ‘well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms.’” [More]
My Firearms News column elaborates on some case details not included in my Saturday AmmoLand exclusive.
GOA and GOF Petition the Virginia Supreme Court for a Preliminary Ruling on Virginia’s Looming “Assault Firearms” Ban [More]
In related news, SAF is throwing financial support behind another case first reported on by yours truly.
Virginia’s central argument is that Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution is not an individual Second Amendment-style right at all. According to the Commonwealth, Section 13 is a “collective, militia-tethered right,” meaning the right to keep and bear arms is tied to militia service rather than individual self-defense. [More]
There is no new thing under the sun.
And Opposite Day “progressives” keep coming back with the same tired, old, debunked revisionist lies.
A first-of-its-kind effort describes police sniper use of force engagements in U.S. [More]
Is that where they use those weapons of war only suitable for killing as many people as possible in as short a time or possible, or am I thinking “patrol rifles“…?
I can never keep that “standing army” vs. “Militia of the several States” clear as to who’s supposed to do what.
[Via bondmen]
Marine vet prosecutor refuses to cross constitutional line on Spanberger ‘assault weapon’ ban – Commonwealth Attorney Ryan Mehaffey said the new Virginia gun ban ‘is striking at the core of the militia system’ [More]
What’s a Law repugnant to the Constitution, again…?
No Ted Olson, he…
This is a major beef I have with apologists for the administration making excuses that they have to defend the law. No, they don’t.
Now all we need is an actual militia system with a core. Anybody see any bills proposing that?
If more took this stand it would galvanize and spread.
Army Testing New XM8 Carbine (No, Not That XM8) [More]
So showing us something we can’t have is supposed to make us do what? Wave a flag?