Notes from the Resistance
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument today in the Reese v. ATF lawsuit involving a federal gun control law preventing young adults from purchasing handguns from FFLs. [Watch]
The ultimate absurdity is young adults being old enough to vote for the government to tell them they’re not old enough to own guns.
[Via Jess]
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument today in Reese v. BATFE involving whether young adults have a right to acquire firearms from federal gun dealers under the Second Amendment and, relatedly, whether 18 USC 922(b)(1) is constitutional. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner predicts that this gun control statute will be struck down and then the US DOJ will have to seek cert from the US Supreme Court. [Watch]
What was the understanding at the time of the Founding?
[Via Jess]
Supreme Court tells Fifth Circuit to stop its defiance in ghost gun case … voiding the lower court orders and allowing the ATF regulations to go into effect pending further litigation. There were no noted dissents. [More]
Because we all know how big the Founders were on serial numbers and background checks…
I infer Nina Totenberg’s celebratory tone. That said, I’m not sure this isn’t more about following procedural steps than signaling a predisposition on an ultimate ruling.
And that said, citizens’ lives and livelihoods are jeopardized in the interim, and that hardly seems consistent with “secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty…”
In Vanderstok federal case involving challenges to ATF’s rulemaking concerning Biden’s Ghost Gun regulations redefining frames and receivers, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to uphold the lower court’s preliminary injunction pending the outcome of this lawsuit. [Watch]
There’s still a way to go, but for now, it’s the antis that are set back.
Tangentially-Related UPDATE
THIS KEEPS GETTING WORSE: Anti-Gun 9th Circuit Judges Playing Games With the 2nd Amendment [Watch]
Judicial Nazgûl continue to circle…
[Via Jess]
In the Fifth Circuit, the entire Court has ruled, en banc, that rights protected by the Second Amendment may not be infringed by mere civil restraining orders. The unconstitutional infringement was placed into law by the infamous Lautenberg amendment in 1996. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been turned upside down and ruined by this infamous and unjust law. [More]
So unproven accusations by parties with vested interests aren’t enough?
I have never given up hope that the collector’s item I got so I’d have standing will one day be surrendered back to me by ATF.
I wonder if SCOTUS will forever punt, and what the implications will be for pistol braces, forced reset triggers, and the like.
[Via WiscoDave]
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…
