Notes from the Resistance
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]
Comments too large and detailed for the comments section on the granting of cert in Morin v. Lyver [More]
WarOnGuns Correspondent “Remarks” gives us some detailed observations on the Massachusetts gun case SCOTUS “remanded … for further consideration in light of” Bruen.
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]
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]
Alito’s warning: Supreme leak made justices ‘targets for assassination’ [More]
So… who do we have on trial for seditious conspiracy?
That broad test gave courts, and legislators, little to work with. “What we’ve seen so far is a lot of confusion and uncertainty in how to apply Bruen’s historical test,” Willinger said. [More]
Let’s start with “shall not be infringed”and go from there.
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]
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]
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]
Is the object to wait for a better case to strip much of the unrestrained rulemaking power away from all federal agencies? [Watch]
Attorney Mark W. Smith speculates on what sounds like a plausible legal scenario and setup, and says don’t abandon all hope on bump stocks. I hope he’s right.
I’ve just heard too many 3D chess claims before.
[Via Jess]
Freeman said the insurance requirement was analogous to some 19th-century laws requiring gun owners to post bond in order to carry a gun. [More]
Ah yes, Licky Liccardo’s law…
The antis will try to use Bruen’s “historical understanding” to justify every disarmament edict they can think up. Let unsaid with that approach:
Were those edicts ever challenged on Second Amendment grounds? Because what they won’t find is the Supreme Court upholding such “laws.”
[Via Jess]
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022). [More]
Supreme Court Tells Lower Court to Reconsider Massachusetts Misdemeanor Handgun Ban
It doesn’t make up for screwing us on bump stocks.
[Via Jess]
CERTIORARI DENIED
21-159 APOSHIAN, W. C. V. GARLAND, ATT’Y GEN., ET AL. [More]
All the Supreme Court has to do to let tyranny stand is…nothing.
I’m wondering if anyone will revisit this in light of Bruen, but then again, the court has pretty much told us they’re not going to touch it.
Some of us will keep fighting in other ways.
CNN, of course, can’t wait to let the cats out.
[Via Jess]
U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right [to] regulate online speech [More]
So… no more “wrong-thinking“…?
With a conflict between the 5th and 11th Circuits, we’ll have to see what SCOTUS does.
[Via Robert J]
A witty and informative email reply by attorney Donald Kilmer to a discussion on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors banning .50-caliber handguns:
As long the ban doesn’t exceed the .64 caliber U.S. issued smoothbore flintlock boarding pistol, we have nothing to worry about. Maybe the Board of Sups should read a little history.
Take that to mean you can’t have a permitted gun with you in a private automobile, either. The entire city is being turned into a “patchwork quilt” designed to make it impossible to travel within its limits without violating the law. [More]
By ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision with impunity, this has effectively become not just a real insurrection, but a sanctioned secession.
My fantasy of forcing ATF to surrender my property back to me may not be so unrealistic provided SCOTUS doesn’t flake out…?
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Tuesday directed its attorneys to draft a series of ordinances aimed at regulating gun sales and possession in the county, including a ban on the sale of .50-caliber handguns and ammunition in unincorporated areas. Another proposed ordinance would require “buffer zones” between gun/ammunition dealers and “sensitive areas” such as schools, day care centers and parks in unincorporated areas. Another would ban the possession of firearms on all county property. [More]
SCOTUS said “historical understanding,” not “hysterical understanding”…
[Via Jess]
