Tag: Mark W. Smith

That is the Question

HUGE SCOTUS ARGUMENT: WILL THE SUPREME COURT DISMISS ALL ANTI-TRUMP FEDERAL CHARGES? [Watch]

And will they overturn convictions that arise from corrupt state lawfare…?

[Via Jess]

Related UPDATE

NEW: Thanks to order by Judge Cannon, key evidence related to classified docs case is now unredacted. On the left: What DOJ/Jack Smith wanted to conceal. On the right: Now we know why. More proof of collaboration btw Biden White House and NARA to concoct a case. [More]

More like “collusion”…

[Via Len Savage]

Youth Must Be Served

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuot denied a request for rehearing En Banc in the Lara v. Pennsylvania case involving young adults and the second amendment. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains the big 2A win! [Watch]

Here’s the case.

Of COURSE RKBA applies to 18-10-year-olds. Try 17.

Of COURSE 1791 is the relevant time period. Some of us have been arguing that for decades. But it’s no surprise lying prohibitionists once more favor applying the racist Black Codes of their Democrat forbears to all.

And of COURSE Judge Krause, with her “In today’s America, by contrast—where firearms include automatic assault rifles” line of “reasoning” is a propaganda-spewing idiot apparatchik.

[Via Jess]

Related UPDATE

SAF weighs in.

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]

Delay of Game

Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban has been kicked back up by the panel for en banc review by the anti-gun Fourth Circuit, meaning it’s going to take the Supreme Court to sort this one out — and all they have to do to leave this gross denial of rights in place is nothing. [Watch]

[Via Jess]

What’s in a Title?

WANTED: CEO for America’s Oldest & Largest Civil Rights Organization. Only Qualified Applicants Need Apply [More]

I couldn’t find a royalty-free photo of a street hooker in a tube top and leopard print hotpants to include with this post. But smart @$$ery aside, what’s with “CEO”?

I’ve been seeing it for years and it’s always confused me.

It’s not just how others refer to him, it’s how NRA refers to him, case in point, on official tax documents they file with the government.

The reason I’m confused is because per the Bylaws, Article V, Section 1 (a):


“The officers of the Association shall be a President, one or more Vice Presidents, an Executive Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, an Executive Director of the National Rifle Association General Operations, and an Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.”

Then you get to (b) and it says (in boldface type):

“The Board may not abolish said offices nor create any other offices.”

That seems pretty specific and there for a reason. Anybody who knows what the deal is, please feel free to educate via comments.

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 Taxing Proposition

Today the Illinois Appellate Division reversed a lower court decision that had dismissed a legal challenge to the Cook County tax on firearms and ammunition sales. [More]

That case has been going back and forth for years. I’d reserve words like “huge” for the final decision, whenever that is.

[Via Jess]

More Than a Ghost of a Chance

US Department of Justice filed main brief in US Supreme Court today asking the Court to hear the Vanderstock v. Garland case dealing with the constitutionality of the Biden “ghost gun” frame and receiver rules. [More]

Mark W. Smith thinks there’s a good chance they’ll hear it.

[Via Jess]

One Down…

US District Court judge Glenn Suddaby finds that NY ban on guns in public housing violates the 2nd Amendment. [More]

That’s all fine and good, but I still want to know why forcing me to pay for someone else’s living costs don’t violate the 13th Amendment…

I wonder what the text, history, and tradition at the time of ratification would have to say about that…

[Via Jess]

UPDATE

SAF weighs in.

Crazy Like a Fox

Crazy news out of California. the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: A three- judge panel has decided that they are going to literally, literally do nothing, do nothing for likely over a year when it comes to the case of Miller vs. Bonta… [Watch]

The robed traitors are waiting for the fix to come in on the elections so Democrats can reshape SCOTUS and reverse Bruen…

[Via Jess]

Running Out the Clock

US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has decided to hear en banc the Bianchi v. Brown MD “assault weapon” ban case and, thus, prevent a likely favor 2A ruling from being issued by the three-judge panel of that court. [Watch]

And as I’ve said, if the Republicans blow the elections and Dems manage to change SCOTUS, we’ll get to see which side is more serious.

Ghost Story

Are we talking about criminals that are obliterating serial numbers which has always happened in American history, um, or something else…? [Watch]

Are we talking about violence monopolist propagandists using deception to advance a citizen disarmament agenda…?

“Real reporter” Matthew Sedacca certainly is a tool.

[Via Jess]

Sounds Like a Plan

And semiautos/magazines…?

Conduct Unbecoming

US District Court of Southern District of California finds that gun purchase restrictions on 18-20 year olds in California is constitutional under the 2nd Amendment. [More]

What kind of evil, lying traitor would you have to be to rule that way? So much for judicial conduct.

His treason will, of course, eventually be overturned, provided the Republicans don’t blow ’24…

[Via Jess]

Ball’s in Their Court

US Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett just ordered the defendants in National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville to explain why the court should not enjoin Illinois’s “assault weapon” ban law. [Watch]

And again with the Barden/Sandy Hook ad intro…

[Via Jess]

Game On

ANTI-GUN SCHEME IN BIANCHI “ASSAULT WEAPON” BAN CASE? Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner addresses whether the US Court of Appeals for the Four Circuit in Playing Games in Bianchi “Assault Weapon” ban case. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (VA, MD, NC) has been sitting on the Bianchi case since its December 6, 2022 oral argument. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner offers a potential explanation for this insane delay. [More]

Our rights are their playthings…?

[Via Jess]

A Presumption of Innocence

A FACTUAL FINDING OF “VIOLENT DANGEROUSNESS” is the Key to disarming a particular person due to mental illness or otherwise. This finding of “violent dangerousness” may only arise after a full blown trial, which is analogous to hearings/ trials associated with placing a person in a mental health institution via an involuntary civil commitment process. [More]

That’s what “full due process” means, something the Sentence Firsters can’t tolerate.

And, of course, disarming only has a chance in custodial environments.

Verified by MonsterInsights