Tag: magazine bans

Something’s Gotta Give*

Supreme Court Review Sought to Challenge Firearm and Magazine Bans Citing Second Amendment [More]

With all the actions being filed, how can SCOTUS continue to leave what we all know the truth to be in legal limbo?

We’ll find our just as sure as we live

Something’s gotta give, something’s gotta give, something’s gotta give.

*

Conference Call

Two Second Amendment Foundation cases challenging bans on so-called “assault weapons” and magazine capacity—one in Illinois and the other in Maryland—are among five cases distributed Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court for conference May 16. [More]

2A defenders are doing a full court press on behalf of all of us.

Standard Fare

NSSF REPORT REVEALS FIREARM MAGAZINES WITH CAPACITY OVER 10 ROUNDS IS NATIONAL STANDARD [More]

I see some “gunfluencers” breathlessly celebrating the end of magazine bans, as if we’re dealing with an enemy that gives up, and as if Democrat judges won’t just ignore what they all know anyway.

And once more we’re seeing “in common use at the time” accepted as a popularity contest for “allowed” guns.

Anyone recall seeing that qualifier included in the wording of the Second Amendment?

[Via Jess]

Meritless First Circuit Abets RI Magazine Ban

We need go no further. Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims sinks their attempt to require the district court to issue a preliminary injunction… We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court, denying the request for a preliminary injunction. [More]

Snotty, arrogant, and imperious in their denial of fundamental rights, just like the Founders intended.

Mark W. Smith dissects.

[Via Jess]

Related UPDATE

Circuit Courts could not give less of a shit that the Supreme Court said interest balancing analysis is not appropriate. They are doing it anyway, and blatantly. Will SCOTUS do anything about it? [More]

That they haven’t already speaks volumes.

[Via WiscoDave]

Order in Illinois Gun/Magazine Ban Case

You can see that Stephen McGlynn is implicitly saying that he totally, totally disagrees with the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and while he’s not calling those judges morons, he’s basically saying, shall we say, they’re clearly wrong on the law. [Watch]

Nothing to stop the rest of us from calling them what they deserve…

[Via Jess]

A Word of Caution

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal challenge of the Illinois ban on modern semi-auto firearms and “large-capacity magazines” have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking certiorari in the case of Harrel v. Raoul. [More]

Be careful that you don’t turn “common use” into a precedential limitation.

News in Brief

The Second Amendment Foundation has submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs in a federal challenge of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” in a case known as Duncan v. Bonta. [More]

I look at the last post and then I look at this and note how the the provokers smear us as the violent ones.

Related UPDATE

Twenty-five states file brief against California’s unconstitutional firearm magazine ban [More]

Tangentially Related UPDATE

SAF FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN PA GUN RIGHTS DENIAL CASE

That’s from Alan Gottlieb’s email. The post isn’t up yet, but when it is you can get the link from SAF’s “News” page.

Prohibitard Follies

How magazine bans thwart self-defense [More]

As if predators will observe them…

Funny, how the same people who advocate tackling shooters during magazine swaps also advise running and hiding first, which are the worst positions to start a quick counterattack from.

Revealing, how they demand to outlaw the only thing proven to work.

[Via Michael G]

The Green Mountain Grift

Gun rights groups sue Vermont over two firearms laws – The lawsuit challenges the state’s newly passed 72-hour waiting period for firearms purchases and a ban on high-capacity magazines that became law in 2018. [More]

I remember when permitless carry was called “Vermont carry” and it set the standard.

I wonder what Ethan Allen would think of Democrats.

And Vichycon swine.

[Via Jess]

Deliberate Indifference

Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denies motion for en banc hearing of challenge against Illinois’ gun and magazine ban. “No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, and all members of the original panel have voted to deny panel rehearing,” the docket said Monday. “The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is therefore DENIED.” [More]

Will this be a catalyst for SCOTUS?

Seriously?

Polls reveal most Americans favor laws limiting the capacity of firearms magazines to 10 rounds, and the New York Times reports that several generally pro-gun federal legislators have expressed support for such legislation. [More]

I read that and my immediate thought was “Who?” and to go kick some Vichycon @$$.

So to prove that he links to a 10-year-old article and the “pro-gun federal legislators” were Harry Reid and other Democrats?

This is “thinking seriously”…?

[Via bondmen]

Wrong Things on Trial

“The Fifth District’s ruling is a victory for The Buckeye Institute and its clients, and all residents of Columbus who want to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. The ruling means Judge Gormley’s preliminary injunction barring the city from enforcing its unlawful gun magazine ban stands and that our clients will have their day in court.” [More]

When will the rights deniers under cover of false authority have THEIR day in court?

Enduring the Interminable

While we are gratified and encouraged by the recent victory in Harney County, it’s important to note that legal efforts to protect the most fundamental rights of gun owners are a long way from over. [More]

Unless the tunnel being dug is redirected, I’m not sure seeing light at the end of it would be a good thing.

Flight of the Nazgûl 

Ninth Circuit issues partial stay in California large-capacity gun magazine case – The four dissenting judges railed against the majority decision, calling the Ninth Circuit’s attitude about the Second Amendment “laughably absurd.” [More]

Except this is no laughing matter.

The Ninth Circuit wrote the book on Second Amendment absurdity going back to their “no individual right” days when the late, dunderheaded Cynthia Holcomb Hall wrote:

Moreover, even if we determined that Hickman had standing to sue for violation of the Second Amendment, his suit would nevertheless fail because the Second Amendment is not incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights