Category: SCOTUS

Blue-Skying

If … we trust you enough to drive a motor vehicle and register your driver’s license right and we’re going to opt you in to be a voter why not also opt these people in to carry guns under ccw permitting system so they get their own card that they can use across the country in relevant states that recognize through the reciprocity system those Concealed Carry Permits that are in your wallet…? [Watch]

It’s an interesting and creative thought but it’s dependent on reversing Democrat majorities and even then would be tied up in the courts for years waiting for a Supreme Court of as yet unknown composition to first agree to hear a case and then rule favorably on it.

Besides, reciprocity becomes a moot point as citizens, per SCOTUS in Dred Scott, have “the right to … keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

That and it’s hard to see how having more people voting favors anyone but ignorance-dependent Democrats. Me, I think Gov. Shapiro just signed the death warrant for PA Republican representation.

And based on his subversive gun betrayals, I think it’s deliberate sabotage by an embedded enemy.

[Via Jess]

‘Wherever They Went’

Especially in light of SCOTUS in Dred Scott:

“It would give to persons … who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to … keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

It doesn’t “give” anything, but the rest is what the understanding was.

So much for “permits” or any level of government having “reciprocity” approval authority. So much for “sensitive areas.”

Not Now

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a request to block state and local laws barring the sale of assault-style weapons in Illinois while a group of challenges to those laws continues in the lower courts. There were no dissents publicly recorded from the unsigned order, nor did the justices provide any explanation for their decision. [More]

I’m going to resist reading more into this for now.

[Via Jess]

And One in the ‘Loss’ Column — For Now

Washington governor poised to sign massive ‘assault weapons’ ban, says it ‘will save lives’ – Bill will ban the sale and manufacture of dozens of semiautomatic rifles in Washington [More]

Because nothing says “security of a free State” like requiring the Militia of the whole people to engage a military threat with inferior armaments.

If SCOTUS doesn’t end up ruling such diktats unconstitutional, it’s game over for peaceful resolution outside of leaving the abusive “partner,” and that’s assuming the power-drunk headcase doesn’t resort to violence if that happens.

Funny, how we don’t call women who leave a relationship under such circumstances “seditionists.”

The Finest Judges Money Can Buy

Yesterday we explored how Gov. Pritzker of Illinois played fast and loose with campaign finance rules to stack the state Supreme Court he is appealing his “assault weapon” ban legal setback to.

Mom-at-Arms has updated its report to prove a conflict of interest and to cite U.S. Supreme Court precedent:

Bishop On Air says “recuse.” (14:56)

Gun Sense Judges

Delaware lowers passing score on bar exam in push for racial diversity: ‘Not supposed to be a barrier’ – Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. said changes reflect ‘modernization’ of admission process [More]

Hey, if Biden can do it for the Supreme Court, what’s the big deal with his home state doing it for the locals?

[Via Michael G]

Adventures in Baselessness

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will consider for a second time whether to hear Raland J. Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, a case that alleges Congress had a duty to investigate claims of fraud and impropriety in the 2020 national election, and that member votes against doing so amounted to treason. [More]

And all they have to do to let things stand is…nothing.

[Via Michael G]

Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Get Back in the Water

Supreme Court rejects New York gun retailers’ bid to block new concealed carry laws [More]

How the same court that ruled on Bruen could refuse to block this has Yul baffled.

I’m not sure it’s the “major blow” this is being presented as, and it could be there’s some 3D chess going on by Thomas and some others to allow lower court challenges to continue, but Lord knows I’ve been dead wrong in trying to figure out what it takes to acknowledge “shall not be infringed” before.

Maybe somebody’s got pictures?

Hatchet Job

The Supreme Court May Kick Off 2023 With a Huge Gun Rights Ruling – Without oral argument or full briefing, the case could take a hatchet to New York’s new concealed carry law—and countless more nationwide. [More]

So why does Mark Joseph Stern have his panties in a wad?

Oh…

Adventures in Baselessness

In contrast, a little-known case that appeared recently on the Court docket could do just that. The case of Brunson v. Adams, not even reported in the mainstream media, was filed pro se by ordinary American citizens – four brothers from Utah — seeking the removal of President Biden and Vice President Harris, along with 291 U.S. representatives and 94 U.S. senators who voted to certify the electors to the Electoral College on Jan. 6, 2021 without first investigating serious allegations of election fraud in half a dozen states and foreign election interference and breach of national security in the 2020 presidential election. The outcome of such relief would presumably be to restore Donald Trump to the presidency. [More]

Wake me when SCOTUS agrees to hear it.

[Via bondmen]

Under Consideration

David M. Greco, Petitioner v. Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al… Dec 28 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/13/2023. [More]

This is a FOURTH AMENDMENT challenge to New Jersey’s “red flag” law based on unconstitutional search and seizure…

Armed Scholar explains.

[Via Jess]

Too Little Too Late?

The new amendment reads, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” [More]

I thought the Bruen standard did away with means-end scrutiny and deferred to a “historical understanding”…?

[Via Michael G]

Do-Over

[Decision]

Here’s the background:

Morin v. Lyver is a follow-up challenge to the lifetime ban on the issuance of a License to Carry to anyone conviction of a minor, non-violent misdemeanor if the offense involves a weapon or ammunition and where a term of imprisonment may be imposed… Dr. Morin has since applied for and was issued a Firearms Identification Card. However, his application for a Permit to Purchase was denied.

You can have the card but you can’t have the gun? Some Masshole government POS decided that? Really?

[Via Jess]

Democrat Judge Supports Bringing Back Slave Codes

Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms. [More]

And not just felons!

The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that “a Negro could be free” also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free.

Who does the Obama appointment have in mind? Carl Bogus and Michael Bellesiles?

Figures the anti-gun fascists at Slate are all giddy over this.

Hey, at least Reeves isn’t starting the clock at the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Via Remarks]

We’re the Only Ones Fearful Enough

US Supreme Court Gives Police Green Light To Preemptively Shoot & Kill Drivers They Fear Could Pose Danger To Others With Their Car [More]

Despite the science telling us:

When it comes to assessments of risk, there may be no more pertinent emotion than fear.

Just the kind of mental state that ought to “earn” a qualified immunity license to kill, no?

[Via Dan Gifford]

We’re the Fauxnly Ones Qualified Enough

Do you think anyone who works for the government—not just the police—should be able to pull you over and detain you? And if a government employee who was never granted police powers assumes these powers unilaterally and clearly violates your constitutional rights, should you be able to hold them to account? Or should they be allowed to get off scot-free through “qualified immunity” merely because they work for the government? [More]

What’s the county engineer’s name?

[Via Michael G]

Unlimited Potential

CNN Sounds Alarm: SCOTUS May Wipe Out Gun Control ‘Nationwide’ [More]

Only if we think of Bruen as “a good first step” and realize that we can’t take it for granted that the courts are going to save us… especially noting how Democrat strongholds, with guns to back their moves up, are deliberately thumbing their noses as they pile on new infringements.

[Via bondmen]

Verified by MonsterInsights