Justices’ Home Addresses Blasted on Social Media With Zero Consequences [More]
Jeez, talk about a seditious conspiracy…
So what are these terrorists’ parents’ home addresses?
[Via Mack H]
Category: SCOTUS
Brace Yourselves
States brace for fight over gun laws after high court ruling [More]
“We” have to finance both sides.
And they’ll throw up obstacle after obstacle, each taking years to resolve.
By then, the plan is to have a new majority.
[Via Jess]
Speaking of Serious Misfires
The Supreme Court’s gun ruling is a serious misfire [More]
This from a Vichycon stooge who advocates:
Gun control advocates who want to square their policy preferences with the Constitution should squarely face the need to deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrassing amendment.
and:
Republicans Better Off Losing by Landslide
Funny he should mention “The Second Amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights with a preamble” without acknowledging the Bill of Rights itself has a Preamble that makes clear what Founding intent was:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
It has “restrictive clauses” against the government.
[Via Mack H]
Unclear on the Concept
“Been working too hard to stop and think about how the Supreme Court of these United States approvingly cited the Dred Scott decision to justify its gun ruling today.” [More]
So she prefers blacks unarmed?
[Via Michael G]
‘Settled’ Law
At last this issue has now been satisfactorily settled!
The issue of the constitutionality of “assault weapons” has still not been settled. [More]
Miguel A. Faria, MD, notes we’ve come a long way but still have a long way to go.
Some Good News and Some Bad News
California Attorney General says “effective immediately, issuing authorities should no longer require proof of good cause for the issuance of a public-carry license.” [More]
These weasels always have big “buts”:
Don’t “Back the blue” or ATF or…? So much for “respect for the law.” How is being against fetus butchering or drag queen story hour for preschoolers “respect[ful] for the rights of others? If you’re against “sanctuary” for illegals (hell, if you even call them “illegals”) or “critical race theory” school curricula, and BLM Marxists, how is that an “absence of racism”? Plus, we all know anyone smeared as a “white nationalist extremist Nazi” is the greatest threat to “our democracy.” Just ask the U.S. Department of Justice!
Page 3 shows all the arbitrary and politically -exploitable “good moral character” outs they’re sending signals to impose, so look for delays and denials that will take more drawn-out court cases to wrangle out.
I wouldn’t be calling the “Supreme Court victory” a slam dunk just yet. If there’s one thing leftists are good at, it’s weaponizing the law against their enemies while ignoring it themselves.
[Via several of you]
Prohibitionists Resort to Rants, Libel, and Lies over Supreme Court Gun Ruling
Let’s look at how the antis are reacting to the decision on social media. [More]
You can tell a lot about sore losers from the angry, lying excuses they make.
No Problem Here
Supreme Court rules out suing police for Miranda violations [More]
Maybe it’s just me, but I always figured if you were dumb enough to admit anything to the police you deserved the same sympathy as the lunatic who climbs into the hyena enclosure at the zoo.
The thought of a proven sexual predator being able to sue the productive sector (yeah, it’s not “the police” who will pay) because he didn’t know ratting yourself out would hurt is not something the Founders ever contemplated.
[Via Mack H]
Eeooow, We Won…
After the Supreme Court ruled, Clement’s now-former law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, announced in a news release that it will “no longer represent clients with respect to matters involving the interpretation of the Second Amendment.” [More]
It’s not like Clement didn’t come with his own contradictions.
[Via DDS]
That Depends on Who You Know and Who You Are
Is It *Really* Impossible To Get A Gun License in NYC? [More]
Not at all. Just ask these guys.
Who wants to be the guinea pig for “must issue” now that SCOTUS has ruled?
Finishing the Sentence
“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities… [More]
… by sending militarized masked jackbooted thugs to terrorize and attack into submission or destroy any citizen (including his family) who doesn’t surrender and obey us. Now.
[Via Bluesgal]
What Do You Need a Gun For?
U.S. braces for violence against conservatives, pro-life groups with Supreme Court’s abortion ruling [More]
So, not content to just murder babies they’re going to target people who can fight back?
Curious how upset those who scream “home rule” on guns are on a decision expected to defer to the states.
I also can’t help but observe the vast majority of “procedures” aren’t being demanded by people likely to produce the next generation of cultural traditionalist voters. Just sayin’.
UPDATE
We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
Court Watchers
Making a Federal Case Out of It
Supreme Court limits reach of federal gun crime law [More]
No sympathy for Taylor. My problem with the Alito/Thomas dissent is that there are “federal gun crime laws.”
I also don’t mind seeing someone else taking a swipe at “Project Exile.”
[Via Jess]
We’re the Only Ones Unchallengeable Enough
The explicit part of that puzzle came two weeks back when the high court ruled that a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer—who allegedly assaulted the owner of a bed and breakfast and then sent the IRS after him for lodging a complaint—cannot be sued for violating the First and Fourth Amendments. This overturned a lower court decision that came to the opposite conclusion and etched in stone that immigration agents are, in some sense, above the law. [More]
Well, how else are we going to have a tyranny if enforcers aren’t allowed to tyrannize? Besides, it’s not like they’re out there repelling foreign invaders.
And remember, “conservatives”: Back the Blue (or in this case, green)!
[Via Michael G]
The Third Law
Supreme Court Gun Record Is Sparse Ahead of Likely Rights Expansion [More]
Not to be all negative and everything, but I’m also expecting them to volunteer more compromising statements like Scalia did in Heller that will feed into the Democrats’ “no right is absolute” deception.
For every expansion, there’s an equal and opposite reduction…
Supremely Indifferent
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a case brought to it by a Missouri Republican Senate candidate and his wife, who were seeking review of the professional disciplinary action they faced, as lawyers, for pointing guns at racial justice protestors demonstrating outside their St. Louis home. [More]
So “racial justice protestors” typically do this as they go through private property?
[Via Mack H]
