Tag: Bruen

Just Like the Framers Intended

For places that are newer, Defendants must point to regulations that are analogous to the regulations cited by the Supreme Court, taking into account that it is illogical to expect a government to regulate a place before it existed in its modern form. [More]

So, any building, parcel, street, city, territory, or state developed after ratification…?

What other articles in the Bill of Rights does this apply to?

A Good First Step

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Federal District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston has declared the State of Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transportation and in public transportation facilities unconstitutional as applied to the named plaintiffs in the FPC-supported lawsuit Schoenthal v. Raoul. [More]

Good. But don’t overlook “The State is expected to appeal the decision.”

[Via Jess]

The Wrong Question

The state’s license-to-carry statute violates the Second Amendment by not providing objective standards for local police chiefs to exercise their authority to deny a gun owner’s application for a permit based on a finding of “dangerousness,” a Holyoke District Court judge has held. [More]

Yeah, OK, fine.

Now tell us where that “authority” for “permits” comes from.

Mr. Pynchon, you’re up.

[Via Jess]

Whatever the Case May Be

In the wake of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Bruen v. United States… [More]

Now that’s “real reporting”!

As a side note, I hate these MSN click bait slide shows and generally won’t link to them if I can get the story elsewhere. Advertisers ought to realize people forced to click if they want the next information morsel don’t even look at their spots.

Think of It as Good Old-Fashioned Bench Electioneering

US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to put on hold a New York City licensing rule requiring prospective gun owners to show good moral character to own a firearm. In rejecting a stay request on Thursday relating to a district court order that’s being appealed, Sotomayor turned away yet another bid to prohibit government officials from enforcing their laws while being challenged in court. [More]

Sounds to me like she’s campaigning to keep her seat.

Related UPDATE

Yes, by all means.

[Via Jess]

Youth Must Be Served

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuot denied a request for rehearing En Banc in the Lara v. Pennsylvania case involving young adults and the second amendment. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains the big 2A win! [Watch]

Here’s the case.

Of COURSE RKBA applies to 18-10-year-olds. Try 17.

Of COURSE 1791 is the relevant time period. Some of us have been arguing that for decades. But it’s no surprise lying prohibitionists once more favor applying the racist Black Codes of their Democrat forbears to all.

And of COURSE Judge Krause, with her “In today’s America, by contrast—where firearms include automatic assault rifles” line of “reasoning” is a propaganda-spewing idiot apparatchik.

[Via Jess]

Related UPDATE

SAF weighs in.

Speaking of Text, History, and Tradition…

A federal appeals court upheld court orders prohibiting two criminal defendants from possessing firearms while awaiting trial. [More]

Not that such prohibitions work…

If people are going to cite Bruen to demand historical context, I’d be interested in whether or not bail for those who “would pose an unusual danger, beyond the ordinary citizen, to themselves or others” was widely practiced in the Founding era, under what conditions, and if denying it to the really heinous ones was alleviated by the right to a “speedy trial.”

Virginia’s “But if a crime be punishable by life or limb, or if it be manslaughter and there be good cause to believe the party guilty thereof, he shall not be admitted to bail” strikes me as consistent with another law I keep prattling on about, and raises another question: What was the average length of time from arrest to trial to the gallows for the bad ones?

[Via Dan Gifford]

The Tip of the Iceberg

But Bellows, who was elected in 2022, cited a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that there is a “strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”… Bellows also ruled the prosecutors did not present evidence of a historical tradition of disarming felons after the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. [More]

There oughta be a law!

Bruen terrifies the Deep State Swamp. What other areas of “law” would fail its test?

[Via Jesse J]

One Step Forward…

The Second Amendment Foundation has been granted summary judgement in a federal challenge of California’s One-Gun-A-Month (OGM) purchase law. U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes stayed his decision for 30 days for the defendants to facilitate an appeal. [More]

And thumbing noses at Bruen will drag on and on and on with the hopes that Republicans blow the election and Democrats can reshape SCOTUS to reverse it.

And here’s the thing:

The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. The Court relies on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its rulings. In some cases, the Supreme Court has been unable to enforce its rulings.

I’d need a lawyer to weigh in on whether they could charge inferior court judges with contempt for disregarding their rulings, and they’d still be dependent on the other branches. I fear the only “legal” remedy is impeachment, for which Republicans have neither the power nor the appetite.

So now we have to see what Hayes says in a month, and then see who initiates an appeal, then lather, rinse, repeat.

Judicial Gamesmanship

The analogy of undocumented immigrants to British loyalists is interesting. If a law-abiding, former enemy of the state could possess a firearm, an undocumented, but otherwise law-abiding, immigrant seems less extreme in comparison. [More]

He’s not “otherwise law-abiding.” He is an invader in possession during the commission of a crime.

The Obama judge is doing this on purpose to undermine Bruen.

[Via Jess]

Reframing Bruen

As described above, the Petitioner has demonstrated and the Court finds that New York’s Red Flag Law is not beyond the “outer limits” the framers and ratifiers of the Second and Fourteenth amendment understood them, based on the nation’s historical traditions. [More]

It’s no surprise support for Red Queen laws comes from judges still inserting an affinity for the “collective right” interpretation into their arguments…

Washington Gun Law gives analysis commentary.

[Via Jess]

They’ll Know It When They See It?

“We recognize that ‘good moral character’ is a spongy concept susceptible to abuse.” [More]

Like the definition of “pornography“? Or “woman“?

I wonder if a Second Amendment advocate who believes it is a bulwark against domestic tyranny could be disqualified…

And if that would be sufficient to bring a libel suit…

Above the Law

So much for “the supreme Law of the Land”…

To All Intents and Purposes

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen found that a central part of New York’s licensing process, requiring a special need to obtain a concealed-carry permit, violated the Second Amendment. Because of this, Rivera reasoned, New York can no longer presume that everyone who possesses an unlicensed firearm intends to use it illegally. [More]

The presumption ought to be that licenses are illegal.

[Via Jess]

The Astroturfers are Sweating, But Not Over Finances

The aftermath of Bruen has also prompted a surge in lawsuits challenging various gun laws, according to Giffords, a gun control group, with more than 450 decisions trying to interpret the case. [More]

What a stacked deck. Because it’s not Giffords, which rakes in millions, that’s defending against infringment challenges. It’s various levels of government, with virtually unlimited tax plunder-funded legal war chests.

Meanwhile, the gun groups fighting on our behalf are begging for minimal contributions from already overextended members and supporters. Just don’t let the apparent success momentum of these efforts capitalizing on Bruen suggest it’s OK to ease up.

I may just write up a more detailed elaboration on this.

[Via Jess]

Trouble Ahead?

The Supreme Court appears inclined to uphold a federal law banning guns from those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), in the first major test of the Second Amendment at the high court this term. [More]

Looks like some of the pundits assuring us Bruen was a magic bullet may have some ‘splainin’ to do…

The question now is which of the “justices” will show the beliefs no one dared ask them about during confirmations…

UPDATE

Or maybe not.

On the Gunny Side of the Street

Among other restrictions, the law bans the public carry of firearms at designated sensitive locations and institutes a default ban on carrying firearms on private property without express permission from the property owner. [More]

WarOnGuns Correspondent JR asks if a public easement means you can be armed on private property traversed by a sidewalk.

All It Takes is One Robed Traitor

A victory for Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in court, at least for now, in the fight over her controversial gun ban. A federal court denied the preliminary injunction against the governor’s health order, allowing for the enforcement against carrying guns in public parks and playgrounds. [More]

John Crump explains:

He reasoned that the founding era was not the ratification date of the Second Amendment. He claimed the founding era was started in 1868 during the reconstruction era when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. At that time, gun laws were being passed in the South to prevent formerly enslaved people from obtaining firearms. These racist gun laws are the ones that Judge Urias used in his decision.

Why would he do that, you ask…?

He was nominated by President Joe Biden (D)…

That’s a lot of Republicans who didn’t bother to vote.

[Via Jess]

Hunter Biden Gun Pleadings Threaten to Derail Joe’s Entire Agenda

The citizen disarmament house of cards … may be set to collapse, and “the Big Guy” may have a son who will do anything to save his own skin to thank for it. [More]

It’s like we’re living in an absurdist farce if Hunter Biden, in a drug-fueled orgiastic stupor, ends up doing more to advance the Second Amendment than Wayne LaPierre after decades in charge of the freakin’ NRA…

Prosecuting Trump on Gun Charge Could Backfire ‘Bigly’

If they go after him on it, Democrats know such a charge would almost certainly make it to the Supreme Court. Considering all the complications the Bruen text, history, and tradition standard is throwing in the path of gun prohibitionists in the inferior courts, such charges – like those against Hunter Biden – could very well find such edicts unlawful violations of the Second Amendment. [More]

Special Counsel Jack Smith makes a threat his masters may be afraid for him to make good on.

A True Champion of the Second Amendment

Hunter Biden pleads not guilty to federal gun charges out of Special Counsel David Weiss’ probe [More]

It would be such sweet poetic justice if he unraveled the Big Guy’s (current) Holy Grail, “universal background checks” with their “prohibited person” disqualifiers.

Plus, once his case is settled I’ll be able to file my follow-up FOIA request and ATF will be fresh out of sustainable excuses.

[Via several of you]

Verified by MonsterInsights