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.
“The Second Amendment—like every other constitutional right—has limits. Machine guns are commonly used for crime, not self-defense. So, they can be banned,” the panel ruled. “And reasonable registration requirements are not infringements.” [More]
They’ll continue getting away with lying like this until they don’t dare.
Supreme Court Sets Dec. 2 Arguments in AR-15 Ban Cases as DOJ Backs Gun Owners [More]
Their decisions, when they make it, will set the stage for what comes next.
As will your decision.
Google News tab hits as of this morning:
I hope louder voices pick up on this news, because I consider this brief to be the best Second Amendment justification I’ve ever seen submitted to SCOTUS, the one I’ve been waiting for because it lays out the foundation and blueprint to follow to overturn the NFA and Hughes Amendment abominations.
“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.
A long-haul truck driver is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Minnesota can shut off his right to bear arms the moment his rig crosses the state line—even though he holds valid carry permits from two other states. [More]
And all SCOTUS has to do to let denial of rights under color of authority continue is… nothing.
“Gun bans are strong medicine. But occasionally, they are just what the doctor ordered.” [More]
Or as Gomez Addams said:
I wish he’d shake his rattles or yell a few times as Dr. Mbogo does. Makes you feel like he’s accomplishing something.
Now shut up and take your rights clot shot.
And from the “There Are No Coincidences” file, I just taught this song to my four-year-old granddaughter last night.
Related UPDATE
He’s another Trump-appointee. And not how he uses “common use” against us.
I hate to say “I told you so.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Novotny v. Moore, SAF’s challenge to Maryland’s so-called “sensitive places” carry ban. [More]
What do you think the chances are the men who consented to be governed would have been OK with “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed– except over here, and here, and…”?
Len Savage emailed Director Cekada:
Original post: ATF Statement in Rare Breed Trigger Litigation Raises Questions on Legal Authority
Let’s not go celebrating just yet:
How is that legal, when Ohio, where open, concealed and permitless carry are legal, has state preemption for firearms laws, previous Attorney General Dave Yost confirmed political subdivisions must allow it?
Let’s ask the new guy and find out.
[Via Aaron P]
“Please show me anywhere in the U.S.C. or C.F.R. that rate of fire is regulated in any way? Only method of fire is regulated. If it fires more than once per function of the trigger it’s highly regulated. If not, there is NO regulation.” [More]
Just because they act like they have the power to do something doesn’t mean they actually do.
“Only about 30 to 50% of hunters around the nation, it’s about 50% here in Wisconsin, actually vote and if all of our hunters got out and voted we would not have an issue with worrying about losing the 2nd Amendment,” Van Orden said. [More]
Call Fudds who vote Democrat what they are: Gunkapos.
[Via bondmen]
Newsstand: Injunction Blocks Enforcement of Virginia’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, NSSF to Expose Billionaire Funding Behind the Gun Control Movement, Trump Promises National Concealed Carry Reciprocity – Again, New Jersey ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban and Magazine Capacity Restrictions Struck Down. These stories by Darwin Nercessian and David Codrea. [More]
The September “Special Hunting” issue of Firearms News is now available at diverse, equitable, and inclusive newsstands throughout the Republic, or in your mailbox/available via digital access if you subscribe.
Ninth Circuit Leaves California’s 24/7 Gun-Store Surveillance Law in Place [More]
If they’re not afraid to violate the Second Amendment, why would tyrants worry about ignoring the First, Fourth, and Fifth?
Hemani did not rule out Section 922(g)(3) charges when the government presents additional evidence that a defendant poses a danger to public safety. But prior to Hemani, prosecutors typically did not do that. The question now is how federal courts should deal with such prior convictions: Should they simply be vacated, or should the government get another chance to offer evidence that would meet Hemani’s new requirements? [More]
I’m all for punishing the hell out of people who make the choice to misoperate a firearm, or car, or anything while intoxicated and then threaten and/or harm the innocent. But how stoned do you have to be to believe abridging a fundamental right and imposing a permanent prior restraint because someone MIGHT temporarily do something bad is consistent with Founding intent?
[Via Lane]
Funny… when he talks about what makes us different from other countries and the legacy bequeathed by the Founding Fathers, it sounds a lot like he’s lauding those “Heritage Americans” he disparaged as “loony”…
While searching for something else today I ran across this 2015 post from the old blog, that in turn linked to an admission from the political left that supports everything I’ve been warning about regarding immigration and the Second Amendment.
El-Sayed Dodges Twice on if He Wants to Replace 2nd Amendment Before Saying He’s Okay With Hunting Rifles [More]
For hunting tyrants and domestic enemies…?
Besides, we already have “a right to healthcare.”
We just don’t have a right to force someone else to provide it for us– that’s called slavery.
[Via bondmen]
Kathy Hochul defended her state’s ban on 3D-printed guns, saying, “I’m going to be the one who says no.” [More]
Note the way she equates all citizens determined to exercise rights she has no legitimate claim to with “someone in their kitchen who may have severe mental health problems who wants to shoot up kids in your school.”
It sounds like the severe mental problems are hers– especially if she believes she can stop those determined citizens.
Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. [More]
You know the answer to that and I know the answer to that.
The question isn’t so much how many Supreme Court Justices know the answer to that as how many will not willingly subvert the Constitution and betray their countrymen?