GOA, GOF FILE PETITION WITH SCOTUS IN NY CONCEALED CARRY LAWSUIT [More]
It’s not just in your face, it’s in the Supreme Court’s face, when the woudl-be tyrants come back with an even worse bill then the one overturned in Bruen.
[Via Jess]
Tag: Bruen
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…
Inferior Court
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]
Survey SAYS…
One decision included in the poll was Bruen, and the poll found that 67% favored the ruling, while only 33% opposed it. [More]
Landslide victory, right?
Now, how will they vote?
Or as “The Wolf” advised in Pulp Fiction… (NSFW)
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]
Great Expectations
Brace Yourselves
BREAKING PISTOL BRACE INJUNCTION NATIONWIDE! This is NOT a drill!! Britto v. ATF [Watch]
The assumption here is that “in its entirety” means nationwide.
[Via Wirecutter]
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
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]
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]
Don’t Let the Door Hit Ya…
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]
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]
An Age-Old Question
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]
