Notes from the Resistance
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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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]
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…
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.
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.
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]
Don’t expect the antis to just give up though.
[Via Jess]
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.
“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.
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.
Where Can You Carry a Gun? Whiplash Court Rulings Create Confusion. [More]
Where can criminals carry guns?
Hawaii: House Judiciary Committee to Hear Anti-Gun Bills [More]
What do they care if they all run afoul of Bruen?
They have tax cows they can milk for legal war chest funds, all the while depleting their victims’ resources to fight back.
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]
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…
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]
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]
Supreme Court rejects New York gun retailers’ bid to block new concealed carry laws [More]
How the same court that ruled on Bruen could refuse to block this has Yul baffled.
I’m not sure it’s the “major blow” this is being presented as, and it could be there’s some 3D chess going on by Thomas and some others to allow lower court challenges to continue, but Lord knows I’ve been dead wrong in trying to figure out what it takes to acknowledge “shall not be infringed” before.
Maybe somebody’s got pictures?
In HB101, which was filed today by Representative Andrea Romero, if you own a semi-automatic rifle you would have to destroy it or surrender it to the state by July 1 of this year or you would be committing a felony. The bill also makes it a felony to own a magazine that holds more than 9 rounds. [More]
At some point, there have to be stiff sanctions for in-your-face defiance of the SCOTUS ruling or they’ll just keep pulling this sh!+.
Federal public defenders in 9th Circuit challenge pretrial release ban on guns. Public defenders in 5th Circuit argue against ban on felons owning guns. [More]
And:
And now in the 3rd Circuit…
[Via Jess]
In a case involving fees for commercial filming in areas under the control of the National Park Service, the DC District Court has ruled that fees charged for exercising constitutional rights of the first order are unconstitutional… ‘This regime is difficult to square with the longstanding rule that the government may not “impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution,” including the First Amendment right to free expression.’ [More]
I see this was written before a historical understanding was ruled the standard.
Still, what’s with “a right granted by the federal constitution“?
[Via Dan Gifford]
