Notes from the Resistance
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]
GOA & GOF File for Summary Judgment to Overturn Florida’s Open Carry Ban [More]
’bout damn time. Before someone gets killed.
So, will Uthmeier and DeSantis stand down, like they did with a challenge to the under 21 long gun ban, or fight, and in any case, all the Supreme Court has to do to keep the prohibition in place is something they’ve proven very adept at: Nothing.
Sorry it took so long to reply– I was away for several days. The video incident happened before FL passed permitless carry. In retrospect, I should have pointed that out. [More]
The “Only One,” who doesn’t know the law and who said he had respect for an amendment he couldn’t even properly number, was instructing his victim to break another law.
If that’s coming from a sergeant, imagine the street grunt’s legal acumen.
There is something that is in DeSantis’ power to do that can mitigate that danger without having to rely on oath-breaking Republican power players… [More]
One simple, proactive order that is within the governor’s power to issue could minimize the chances of lawful open carriers being endangered by police ignorance of the law.
Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have filed their opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging California’s sweeping surveillance mandate on firearm dealers. This appeal is part of the ongoing case against Cal. Penal Code Section 26806, which forces all FFLs—including home-based dealers—to install 24/7 video and audio recording systems to surveil customers, and then retain that data for warrantless inspection by the state. [More]
Democrats to Orwell: Hold our beer.
Hey… any law against putting that poster next to the cameras?
A reminder that most of “the squad” came out of the DSA. [More]
And of course, the cowards at the DSA calling for bringing the war to our streets don’t allow replies to their post from just anybody.
Here’s another reminder, that DSA songs they no longer post on their website are only available now via the Internet Archive:
Funny, how DSA/”Squad” members want our guns:
[Via Michael G]
Second Amendment Roundup: Bruen Was Right [More]
Now what can SCOTUS do about the “inferior courts” thumbing their noses at it, and what can DOJ do about states?
That said, why all the emphasis on “common use“?
Imagine if Founding Era understanding were applied to other areas of law.
[Via Michael G]
From the Department’s perspective, regardless of whether the Second Amendment requires an individualized restoration process for persons subject to 18 U.S.C. 922(g), 18 U.S.C. 925(c) reflects an appropriate avenue to restore firearm rights to certain individuals who no longer warrant such disability based on a combination of the nature of their past criminal activity and their subsequent and current law-abiding behavior while screening out others for whom full restoration of firearm rights would not be appropriate. [More]
The first part is fine. We need to understand how more than a select few can qualify.
As for those “others,” when are they going to learn?
Follow instructions under “ADDRESSES” to submit your comment.
[Via Jess]
For far too long, New York Democrats have weaponized state power to systematically dismantle the rights of law-abiding gun owners. That’s why I sent a letter to AG Bondi to investigate New York State’s persistent and unconstitutional assault on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens. [More]
[Via Jess]
I thought you guys were trying to fake men into thinking you suddenly grokked them…
Instead, you’re out there spooking the herd by showing them an open borders hypochondriac spokesmodel who is scared of guns, scared of cars, incompetent at life, obsessed with AIDS movies, and fantasizes that if he were gay, he would “get married tomorrow, just to f*** with the church.”
Come to think of it, that pretty much describes anyone dumb enough to vote for you.
[Via WiscoDave]
From Rep. Paul Gosar to a constituent via email:
Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, where Congress implements budget resolution policies that are required to be related to permanent spending and revenue programs. Additionally, the Byrd rule, which was incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, prohibits provisions that are “extraneous to the purpose of implementing budget resolution policies.” Consequently, provisions in a reconciliation bill cannot include policy changes that do not affect the budget or spending programs.
Consequently, this is why the full versions of the SHORT and Hearing Protection Act were not included in the bill, as the portions that affect non-tax provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) violate the Byrd rule.
Per the recipient:
“Now the only thing I need to figure out is how they managed to pass a bill out of the House that removed both the tax AND the registration. If you have any news on that, it sure would be worth a blog post.”
I don’t. How about you? And why not do the same with SBRs?
Let’s say Harris had won and the next day signed an executive order banning all guns. How many cops do you think would follow their oath? [More]
Oath Keepers had to be destroyed by those in power. And they had to make sure everyone believed that was for our own good.
[Via WiscoDave]
Herschel springboards off my latest “common use” article and gives his own insights. [More]
I’m also interested in the guy in comments who felt the need to qualify his admission that I’m “absolutley correct here” by saying he “often disagrees with” me. Really? How? On what? Is it just from what he infers or can he prove something I said is wrong?
My print articles are available by subscription or at diverse and inclusive newsstands near you:
Since no innovation ever begins “in common use,” a government with the power to do so can ban all new weapon developments from those they would rule, retaining them exclusively for itself. [More]
Sorry, you can’t have one. Hey, it’s your “gun rights leaders” who embraced the “in common use” litmus test we’re using to deny you.
The NFA is constitutional because it’s “a modest burden” and not a ban [More]
The Second Amendment does not say “shall not be banned.” It says “shall not be infringed.” Even modestly.
Unless you’re one of the “smartest people in the room” who buy into the Trump/Bondi DOJ is playing super secret 3D chess with court rules that they can’t tell us about, and it will all work out in the end, honest…
Then ask why they’re not pushing SBRs.
UPenn Climate Prof Quickly Backtracks After Seeming to Call for Armed Uprising Against Trump [More]
Michael Mann…? Isn’t he the environmentalcase who tried to destroy Mark Steyn over free speech…?
Let’s contact General Miyares and politely let him know that you are greatly disappointed in him for not signing on to the national concealed carry reciprocity letter that twenty-four other attorneys general sent to Congress. [More]
Either that or you could do it very publicly, and in no uncertain terms let him know he needs you more than you need him.
