Category: Second Amendment

Hush, Hush

Ohio House Bill 331 and Ohio Senate Bill 214 propose revisions to the Ohio Revised Code, eliminating suppressors and mufflers from the definition of dangerous ordnance and removing language that mandates suppressor registration under the NFA. [More]

I guess it doesn’t hurt to build redundancy into a system.

I’m just the type who thinks “shall not be infringed’ oughta cover everything, in Everytown…

At Least Their Consistency is Inconsistent

We hold that § 5-133(b)(2) is, in substance, a law prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons and, as such, is consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. [More]

Then they should have no problem coming up with an upheld parallel from the time of ratification. Either that or they’re just robed frauds.

And it doesn’t change a basic truth, does it?

[Via Antigone]

Tangentially-Related UPDATE

New York says hold our beer. [Watch]

[Via Jess]

Democrats Triggered

Blue States Sue ATF and National Association for Gun Rights – 16 Anti-gun Attorneys General seek to block agreement to return Illegally seized triggers [More]

It will be interesting to see if competitor rice bowl groups put their historic hostility to NAGR to the side and support them in this.

Get yours while supplies last!

[Via Jess]

An Age-Old Question

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), joined by New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate (NJFOS), have filed a lawsuit in district court challenging New Jersey’s ban on adults under the age of 21 from purchasing, owning or carrying handguns and handgun ammunition. [More]

Y’know, if Bondi’s 2A Task Force included gun owner representation, they’d be able to advise Justice on how best to support this.

What They Mean by ‘Commonsense Gun Safety Laws’

The Exigency for Stricter Gun Control Legislation in the United States of America: Why the Constitution’s Second Amendment Provision for the “Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms” is Obsolete in our Contemporary Society [More]

I trust no one here is surprised…?

[Via Alan Chwick]

Train of Thought

Smith doesn’t expect a win at this stage. With a panel of judges appointed by Reagan, Trump, and Biden—but leaning against gun rights—he predicts the court may rule against plaintiffs either on standing or the merits. But that just sets the stage for a bigger battle ahead—potentially at the Supreme Court. [More]

Oh, well then, victory is assured with those eager beavers!

Casus Belli

I’m not sure why Gavin Newsome [sic] doesn’t activate the rest of his army guard to prevent the president from it or force him to overrule it…. Then fight on the second amendment guaranteeing a state a right to a militia. How can a state have a militia if the president can simply federalize it against the direct wishes of the governor [More]

Ah, yes, a true champion of the Second Amendment…

Just make sure you guys don’t shoot yourselves.

[Via WiscoDave]

Bloomberg Funded Site Argues Gun Control Part of 2nd Amendment History and Tradition

Unable to refute reality, what’s a gun prohibitionist to do but try and confuse the issue? [More]

So what if the Founders never envisioned the “boyfriend loophole”? If you can have a “living Constitution,” why not a “living Second Amendment.”

The Long and Short of It

NRA-ILA Petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to NFA Restrictions on Short-Barreled Rifles [More]

Pretty long on “common use” popularity and pretty short on core purpose except to address militia controls, as opposed to militia necessity.

Now all SCOTUS has to do is… nothing.

[Via Jess]

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

[More]

Talk about sugar-coating: Good grief.

You know what would work even better than “YOUR help”? Getting Pam Bondi and her ATF guy to submit well documented statements of support.

If gun owner reps had a seat at the table, they’d be able to finesse that. But the ones in a position to demand that apparently think continuing to solicit craps shoot funds is the better way to go.

Which History? Which Sources?

Gun rights groups frequently call on courts to exclude other time periods. That’s because there were fewer regulations — at least regulations written down as statute — compared to the latter half of the 1800s, leaving fewer historical analogues to pick from. Focusing on the Founding Era also ignores crucial legal developments in the intervening decades. [More]

Yeah, that’s because later infringements weren’t what was agreed to and ratified.

These creatures are such shameless f_ing liars.

[Via Michael G]

Hold the Gratitude Until There’s an Answer

I would appreciate your help resolving this situation promptly on a statewide basis without the need for litigation. [More]

Yeah, well, what you’d appreciate and what connected Democrat power player Sheriff Sean Kilkenny will do could be two very different things.

Say he says “No,” and then ties things up in court for years and at the end of the trail the Supreme Court pulls another Snope. Why shouldn’t he take his chances and tell her to go for it? Especially since it’s not his money, the Democrats could very well be back in the national saddle by then, and he could emerge as the scrappy warrior who took on the feds and beat ’em…

BREAKING 2A NEWS: MAJOR ORAL ARGUMENT ABOUT GUNS ON PUBLIC TRANSIT!!!

The Federal Appeals Court for the 7th circuit heard an oral argument about gun free zones and whether they are constitutional under the 2nd Amendment. [Watch]

Of course they’re not. “Shall not be infringed,” remember?

Which doesn’t mean this won’t go on for years and end up in front of a deliberately indifferent a Supreme Court that denies cert.

Forgive me if the whole Snope deal has soured me on hyperbolic video titles.

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights