Tag: Bruen

Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Get Back in the Water

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?

Yes, They are Coming for Your Guns

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!+.

So… No Poll Taxes?

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]

State Semiauto Bans Try to Accomplish What Feds Cannot (Yet)

Blue states are attempting to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and federal law to go after “assault weapons.” [More]

My latest piece…

But don’t worry. No one is trying to take your guns.

New York State of Mind

The State of New York is Still Fighting the Bruen Decision [More]

Herschel brings us up to date on Antonyuk v Satan’s Minions, including New York’s insulting brief and Stephen Stamboulieh’s authoritative response.

I have to find out what SCOTUS’s options are for slapping inferiors defying hierarchical precedent down.

Hatchet Job

The Supreme Court May Kick Off 2023 With a Huge Gun Rights Ruling – Without oral argument or full briefing, the case could take a hatchet to New York’s new concealed carry law—and countless more nationwide. [More]

So why does Mark Joseph Stern have his panties in a wad?

Oh…

‘No, No!’ Said the Queen. ‘Sentence First — Verdict Afterwards.’*

The Cuyahoga County case came after Delvonte Philpotts was indicted in 2017 on charges of rape, kidnapping and assault. Prosecutors later dropped those charges, but before they did, Cleveland police found pictures Philpotts posted to social media showing him standing outside his home with a pistol. Police got a search warrant, found the gun in Philpotts’ home, and arrested him for violating a state law banning people under indictment from having a firearm. [More]

“Four Republican judges,” eh?

From what I’ve been able to glean, and if there’s not more than one person with that rather unique name, Delvonte may not exactly be the poster child for unalienable rights. That said, if this can catch him up it can catch you and me up, and I want to know what my “pro-gun” state senator intends to do about it.

“Probable cause” for the search warrant also seems kind of hinky without knowing when the photo was taken and whether or not it was a replica firearm. And that said, leave self-incrimination on social media to the morons.

*

[Via JG]

Just Like the Founders Intended

A federal appeals court on Monday allowed New York to restrict the carrying of firearms on private property under a new law adopted in wake of a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights. [More]

Here ’tis.

Sack is a Clintonista and Wesley was appointed by Dubya, but Bianco was a Trump nominee.

We haven’t heard the last of this, but the first of it is ludicrous, offensive and intolerable.

[Via Jess]

Stay Tuned

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED and … Appellees’ motion to expedite the resolution of the matter is GRANTED. [More]

So the infringements will continue but we’ll hurry up about making a decision?

Here’s the original Antonyuk v. Hochul complaint for those unfamiliar with the case. Just to give you an idea of how full of sh… uh… beans the other side is, check out this bit of lying, hoplophobic hysteria from Brady president Kris Brown:

New Yorkers, like all Americans, do not want their supermarkets, public squares, and child care centers turned into bullet-riddled crime scenes.

Where haven’t lawful concealed carriers done that?

Showing a Little Restraint

Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) secured a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in state court, preventing the entire new Oregon gun control law from being enforced. Signed by Judge Robert S. Raschio, the order bars the state from implementing any portion of the law until a hearing is held on a request for a preliminary injunction next Tuesday. [More]

I guess it all depends on the judge…

UPDATE

Oregon Firearms Federation weighs in.

Forget It, Jake. It’s Illinois.

Illinois Dems Introduce Gun Control Bill Targeting Assault Weapons, Age Restrictions [More]

My bet is it passes and then we’re in for years of challenges based on the Bruen standard. Then all the Republicans need to do is blow everything so the Democrats can restack SCOTUS and go for a reversal.

Any takers?

[Via Jess]

Unsuppressing Suppressors

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants as follows: 1. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) and any other applicable law which prohibits Plaintiffs from owning and banning the acquisition, possession, carrying or use of suppressors; 2. An order declaring that 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) and any other applicable law which prohibits Plaintiffs from owning suppressors is unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; 3. An order declaring 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) and any other applicable law which prohibits plaintiffs from owning suppressors unenforceable… [More]

Stamboulish and Beck, naturally…

[Via Jess]

Title Case

“Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes.” [More]

If you don’t want me there, put up a sign. It’s not the government’s job to absolve you of accountability, and I’ll be happy to let you be the attractant.

UPDATE

Attorney Mark W. Smith calls this “major.” [Watch]

[Via Jess]

Also from SAF

SAF FILES BRIEF SUPPORTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST DELAWARE HB 450

And Then They Came and They Came

More Than Two Dozen Gun Control Measures Prefiled for 2023 Session of the Texas Legislature [More]

None of them pass the Bruen “historical understanding” benchmark, but that doesn’t matter to the antis, who will never stop because they have the resources and media support to keep coming and coming and coming…

[Via Jess]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

And after engaging with this Nation’s tradition of firearm regulations several times already, the Court’s unanswered question is whether Bruen demands lower courts manicure the Second Amendment’s landscape by scalpel or chainsaw….As a result, the Court holds that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under Bruen’s framework. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment be GRANTED. [More]

This…

Read the opinion. Wow!

Expect a challenge from Team Tyranny, because otherwise, their whole damn Gordian knot will unravel.

[Via Jess]

Speaking of ‘Every Terrible Implement’…

Large-capacity magazines are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment because they are not essential to the use of firearms… Additionally, large-capacity magazines are not protected “arms” because they are not commonly used for self-defense. [More]

Since that directly follows an “Overview of Bruen’s text-and-history standard for analyzing Second Amendment claims,” I wonder what Tench would say to that…?

Legal weasel Rob Bonta proves the point that if you limit arguments to “self-defense” and ignore core purpose, you’re not using every means at your disposal.

[Via Jess]

Too Little Too Late?

The new amendment reads, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” [More]

I thought the Bruen standard did away with means-end scrutiny and deferred to a “historical understanding”…?

[Via Michael G]

Do-Over

[Decision]

Here’s the background:

Morin v. Lyver is a follow-up challenge to the lifetime ban on the issuance of a License to Carry to anyone conviction of a minor, non-violent misdemeanor if the offense involves a weapon or ammunition and where a term of imprisonment may be imposed… Dr. Morin has since applied for and was issued a Firearms Identification Card. However, his application for a Permit to Purchase was denied.

You can have the card but you can’t have the gun? Some Masshole government POS decided that? Really?

[Via Jess]

Democrat Judge Supports Bringing Back Slave Codes

Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms. [More]

And not just felons!

The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that “a Negro could be free” also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free.

Who does the Obama appointment have in mind? Carl Bogus and Michael Bellesiles?

Figures the anti-gun fascists at Slate are all giddy over this.

Hey, at least Reeves isn’t starting the clock at the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Via Remarks]

Desperation Move

In papers filed with the 4th Circuit Thursday, Frost said several states restricted bowie knives between those years due to the “uniquely harmful damage” they could inflict on the human body. [More]

“Restricted” past tense…? And how many of those laws were challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court?

Weapons of war are our birthright, Frosh. You know that.

Which makes questioning your character and loyalties more than fair game.

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights