Tag: Bruen

Narrowing the Field

“…the Department of Justice used none of these racist laws they gave up all of these racist laws … because as you know because the burden is on the government to come forth with historical laws at the time of the founding… that we can basically kick out and get rid of as not being applicable reduces the number historical gun control laws that the anti-gunners can use to justify modern gun control regulations… [Watch]

That they don’t dare use racist precedent is powerful information to exploit, legally and ideologically.

One other point I don’t see anyone addressing — just because a law existed at the time of the Founding doesn’t mean it would have been upheld as constitutional if it had been challenged at the time on Second Amendment grounds.

[Via Jess]

What Gun Owners Elected Them For

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that banning large capacity magazines and requiring a permit to purchase a gun falls in line with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety”… [More]

Thanks, Donald Trump and Senate Republicans!

[Via bondmen]

Just Like the Framers Intended

If it sounds like these authors, Guha Krishnamurthi (University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law) and Peter Salib (University of Houston Law Center) are hinting that cops just violate second amendment rights under the color of law based on the protections police enjoy virtually everywhere and in most, if not all, circumstances, you’d be wrong. They say, “The officer’s justifications may conflict with the federal courts’ understanding of Bruen or the Second Amendment—perhaps flagrantly.” [More]

Funny… if they’re going to override Bruen, they don’t cite any Founding Era text, history, and traditions for enforcer supremacy over citizens’ unalienable rights…

Speaking of which, you’d think ol’ Guha would know better than to side with the Red Coats…

Just Like the Founders Used to Ban?

The Biden administration says its Defending new restriction on the possession of pistols with stabilizing braces parallels colonial times. [More]

Do they really want to go down that road?

This part bugged me:

He argued sawed-off shotguns are wildly inaccurate when fired, whereas braces make pistols more stable and accurate.

Does “our side” really want to go down THAT road?

The Bidding of His Masters

Hey, SCOTUS — the right to life trumps the right to own a gun [More]

Don’t tell us, tell the abortion lobby.

Jonathan Lowy puts the lie to Brady and Everytown saying they respect the Second Amendment BUT…

I see he’s dusted off the same lies that got Fast and Furious started.

And guess where he gets the “human rights violation” talking points from.

[Via Jess]

Speaking of Intellectually Flawed

A federal judge denied a motion for preliminary injunction today in a lawsuit challenging New York’s “places of worship” gun ban, saying that the Bruen test “is considered by many to be an impractical and intellectually flawed approach” [More]

You know what else is intellectually flawed?

Allowing these subversive bastards to be confirmed with a voice vote so Senators can’t be held accountable and still maintain their “A” ratings.

[Via Jess]

How About ‘No’?

SCOTUS to look at law barring accused domestic abusers from buying guns… As the Supreme Court justices race to finish up the current term, they will meet behind closed doors on Thursday to consider whether they should add a blockbuster Second Amendment case to the docket for next term. [More]

I’m not seeing where they did…

If you know differently, chime in.

[Via Jess]

Who Will Judge the Judges?

Third Circuit, En Banc, Range v. Lombardo: Not All Modern Felons Lose Second Amendment Rights … Several judges dissented. [More]

Which ones?

Who nominated them?

Who voted to confirm them?

I could go find out but it would take time I don’t have right now.

It would be nice if there were a website that provided judicial ratings and a way to hold those who enabled them politically accountable. It would be even more useful if it also politically scaled and rated inferior court judges running in “nonpartisan” elections and showed who backs them so their partisan allegiances could be inferred.

I guess I’m talking something like Ballotpedia on steroids. Too bad the name “Judicial Watch” is taken, although come to think of it, they’d be the perfect ones to take this on.

Going with What Works

Maryland governor signs gun-control bills tightening requirements, NRA sues [More]

The bastards have virtually unlimited tax plunder to test defiant weasel-wording against Bruen diktats for as long as it takes.

[Via Jess]

Related UPDATE

NRA gets the major media attention, but they’re not the only group taking action:

SAF SUES MARYLAND OVER RESTRICTIVE NEW CARRY LAW

I’ll do another update today if GOA gets involved.

FPC Legal Alert

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against numerous parts of New Jersey’s Bruen response bill. Read the 235-page opinion in our lawsuit… [More]

I’ll have to get to it later. If you’ve got time to read it today, feel free to give the Cliff’s Notes version in comments.

The Founders Knew About and Had No Problem with ‘Stabilizing Braces’

In light of the Bruen decision, where “text, history, and tradition” of the Second Amendment at the time it was written is what informs us as to what the Founders understood the right to protect, I couldn’t turn to the Borchardt – that would play right into the hands of the gun prohibitionists, who, unable to identify Founding-Era infringements have tried turning to later laws, including post-Civil War edicts intended to keep freed blacks disarmed. [More]

Looking back even further in time, we find plenty of examples from the time the Bill of Rights was ratified proving the people of the Founding Era included pistols with shoulder stocks into the broader category of “arms.”

Commierado

Two of the new laws will raise the age to buy any firearm from 18 to 21 and install a three-day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun. A third will strengthen the state’s red flag law, which allows a judge to temporarily remove someone’s gun if the person poses a threat to themselves or others. A fourth rolls back some legal protections for the firearm industry, exposing them to lawsuits from the victims of gun violence. [More]

They don’t care that it will take years and millions of dollars to challenge this under Bruen. They have unlimited tax plunder and by then, especially if that “pathway to citizenship” gets widened with speed lanes, who knows what SCOTUS will look like?

So which gun and ammunition manufacturers are going to0 tell the state to go **** itself?

[Via cydl]

Judge Contrarian

In the case of Hanson v. District of Columbia, in the District Court of the District of Columbia, on April 20, 2023, federal Judge Rudolf Contreras issued an opinion holding standard capacity magazines which hold more than ten rounds of ammunition are not protected under the rights which the Second Amendment was written to protect. [More]

This is the same robed Obama apparatchik who ruled against me and for Hunter Biden, so I guess I’m the one who’s “biased.”

“Confirmed by voice vote,” so all we really know is those “A”-rated Senate Republicans didn’t much care how their supporters would be treated…

Every Terrible Implement of the Soldier

Review: The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900 [More]

In short, if the grabbers are looking for something from the Founding Era to support “historical context” to justify an “assault weapon” ban, they’re not going to find it.

It figures that the lame argument that no one considered the Second Amendment to be an individual right until recently proves to be the exact opposite of the truth. That’s because all the citizen disarmament zealots have are lies.

Pot Luck

Another Federal Judge Rejects the DOJ’s Argument That Cannabis Consumers Have No Second Amendment Rights [More]

And then there’s action on the restraining order front…

I’ll bet a lot of “prohibited person” exclusions could be overturned with the right case, starting with the “one year” nonsense that has no bearing on proven proclivities for violence.

Cold Turkey for Authority Junkies?

In sum, § 922(d)(3) does not withstand Second Amendment scrutiny for much the same reasons that § 922(g)(3) does not. The law’s broad prohibition on the sale or transfer of firearms to unlawful users of controlled substances burdens the Second Amendment rights of those individuals to nearly the same extent as § 922(g)(3). And, as the Court found when assessing § 922(g)(3), our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation does not support placing such a burden on the Second Amendment right. [More]

It would be rich if the person who ultimately got this part of the law overturned for good was Hunter Biden.

[Via Jess]

The Real Conspirators

Illinois judge rules state’s gun ban and registry unconstitutional [More]

That the people have to go to court because the government– where everyone involved swore an oath — is determined to violate the Constitution says much about the treasonous scoundrels in political power.

It also explains why under tyranny, “seditious conspiracy” seems more like a civic duty than a crime.

[Via Dan Gifford]

UPDATE

And Pritzker is appealing to judges who owe their seats to his inherited money.

This is by far the bigger story, meaning don’t look for the DSM to give a damn. Maybe we can at least urge the “gun rights” folks with a longer reach to use it.

A Waiting Game

“New York has once again adopted a law we believe is unconstitutional, and we’re confident the federal court will bring an end to this nonsense. It’s time for lawmakers in Albany to stop trying to outsmart the U.S. Supreme Court.” [More]

I think what they’re doing is much more insidious than that.

They have tax cows they can milk for legal war chest funds, all the while depleting their victims’ resources to fight back. And they’re counting on extending things in the courts long enough for the Republicans to blow it yet again, so the Democrats can stack the court and reverse Bruen.

A Confession or a Boast?

NY 2A Defendant Admits to US Federal Appeals Court that New Gun Law Violates 2A [More]

And he didn’t fall on his knees and beg forgiveness?

UPDATE

I just got the related alert from SAF. It’s not on their News page at this posting, so I copied and pasted the email on my Placeholder site.

Seems the DA didn’t want to be left hanging on defending the indefensible.

Worried Sickos

Latest Supreme Court-related ruling overturning gun regulations worries domestic violence survivor advocates [More]

Yeah, well their demands to throw due process out the window and eviscerate the rights of those inclined to obey disarmament edicts without due process is the more worrisome prospect.

[Via Jess]

There Goes the Boyfriend Loophole!

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the
possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not. [More]

If only there were a better way…

Kwame, How I Love Ya, How I Love Ya, My Dear Old Kwame

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul appealed to the 5th District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon Monday to overturn a temporary restraining order against the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which bans dozens of handguns and rifles, .50-caliber guns, certain attachments and accessories, and limits cartridges to 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for pistols. [More]

On the plus side, it’ll end up heading to the Bruen court…

[Via Jess]

Still Repressive After All These Years

Back in the day, Democrats reacted to the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision requiring that they respect all Americans’ civil liberties with fury and a petulant campaign of massive resistance. What is old is new again – the Democrat Party is back in form, furious that SCOTUS will not let them steal our rights. This time it is gun rights. The Bruen decision made it clear that blue states cannot deny your right to keep and bear arms on a whim. And the libs have gone into overdrive to undermine it. [More]

That the lying totalitarian wannabes call themselves “liberals” is all we need to know.

[Via Michael G]

Verified by MonsterInsights