Notes from the Resistance
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. [More]
The state that inflicted Joe Biden onto the political scene says banning semiautomatic rifles and magazines doesn’t infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Mark W. Smith ties it in with related cases SCOTUS is considering. And I continue to be suspicious of relying on “common use.”
[Via Jess]
There comes a point where it’s simply unbelievable to say that judges actually think that way and aren’t perfectly aware of the tyranny they’re willing parts of.
[Via Jess]
SAF PETITIONS SCOTUS FOR CERTIORARI IN DELAWARE GUN, MAG BAN CHALLENGES [More]
Basically, the prohibitionist position is that free people can’t be trusted with Pez dispenser technology.
Surprising no one, I trust…?
See, there are two different missions here that only occasionally converge when it’s convenient for them. Think Wallace on the field while the Lairds strike their own deals with Longshanks.
[Via Andy M]
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.
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.
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]
“We’re not sure why the media allows Ferguson to get away with such statements without some fact-checking,” Gottlieb questioned. [More]
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.
[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]
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]
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.
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.
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]
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.
[Via Jess]
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?
Attorney General Josh Kaul has joined a coalition of 19 other attorneys general in supporting the state of California’s efforts to restrict the capacity of firearms magazines within its borders. [More]
Time was, exploiting the mentally challenged was frowned upon and considered cruel.
[Via Mike F]
Wow, the A.G. may have bitten off more than he can chew in Cowlitz, County. [Watch]
Make him choke on it.
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]
“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?
Shut the f*** up, Dana, you’re drunk again. [More]
Someone so out of control that she has to be removed from an event so she doesn’t vomit on others demands to control the rest of us under force of arms.
Why does Proverbs 26:11 come to mind…?
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.
Judge Robert Raschio in Harney County has declared Measure 114 to be “facially unconstitutional by a finding of clear and convincing evidence…” [More]
