Notes from the Resistance
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]
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 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.
Fifth Circuit judge defends lower-court ruling in Rahimi, domestic-violence order gun ban case [More]
Mark W. Smith explains why this sends a “powerful 2A Message To SCOTUS.”
[Via Jess]
The US Department of Justice made a major concession involving whether licensing officials working for executive agencies may exercise “discretion” over CCW permits. [Watch]
That is big.
And using that rationale, I’d argue they can’t exercise executive “discretion” in “rulemaking” not backed by legislation, either.
Or in creating new classifications of “prohibited persons.”
[Via Jess]
The Right to Bear Arms and Terrorize Your Partner [Listen]
Or don’t. Noting who is featured and by whom, starting out with a bald-faced lie makes me not want to waste my time being lied to.
[Via Michael G]
Related UPDATE
Here’s some truth. [Watch]
But we still don’t have a decision.
Let’s hope the storm crows are wrong.
[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]
St. BENITEZ 2A MISTAKE: Judge Roger Benitez is Great but He MUST FIX One Important 2A Error [Watch]
I still maintain that when it comes to “in common use” and “dangerous and unusual,” just about everybody’s missing the boat.
Is Justice Amy Coney Barrett a TRAITOR to the 2nd Amendment? [Watch]
Again, this is more procedural than anything. That doesn’t mean justice isn’t being delayed and denied for some. I know as an SNBIer, I’m the last person to talk about nuance, but a High Court that can bypass appeals protocols here can bypass it elsewhere, and you’d better believe one with a different composition would exploit the hell out of that.
I’m surprised so many of Mark W. Smith’s followers in the video’s comments don’t seem to grok his points.
But yeah, I suspect if she had her druthers she wouldn’t be a purist. Neither would Roberts, or Kavanaugh, or… and don’t get me started on Scalia.
This is the hand we’re dealt. It’s up to us to play it smart.
[Via Jess]
FEDERAL GUN CONFISCATION: Can President Biden Declare a WAR or EMERGENCY and TAKE YOUR GUNS? [Watch]
Precedent says “no,” but he could try…
How many he could get, whether they’d be dumb enough to attempt it, and what they’d do if met with defiance is another story.
That’s an interesting point about the gun exemption to Roosevelt’s requisitioning mandate based on 2A being an individual right. That’s something to throw back in the faces of antis claiming that recognition is a recent “gun lobby” fraud.
[Via Jess]
…the lawyers for the plaintiff, specifically attorney Stephen Stamboulieh, an excellent lawyer — we’ve talked a lot about him before — uh, Stephen has done a great job in a lot of cases including the Antonyuk case, and he wrote a very powerful opposition to this making a whole host of arguments as to why this is no good and, uh, I will put a link to his brief down below his motion to strike… [Watch]
It’s nice to see a “small cadre” member getting bigger.
[Via Jess]
US Court of Appeal for Ninth Circuit declared Hawaii’s butterfly knife ban to be unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. Hawaii hires $2400 per hour attorney to try to save the BAN but 2nd Amendment briefs are terrific and should prevail. [Watch]
Major props for Alan Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh who routinely take to the field to battle mercenaries.
[Via Herschel]
[More]
My Firearms News article was cited in 2A scholar Mark W. Smith’s Disarmed: What the Ukraine War Teaches Americans About the Right to Bear Arms.
I often cite him around here, so I guess I’d better get a copy and see what else he has to say.
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]
The lawyers for Zaki Rahimi have filed a powerful compelling argument against the criminal statute 18 USC 922 G8 which is the question presented whether or not that is constitutional under the Second Amendment and Rahimi’s attorneys have 0:19 actually made some additional creative arguments that we’re going to talk about… [Watch]
Mark W. Smith breaks it down for us.
[Via Jess]
DUNCAN v BONTA: California’s Emergency Motion to 9th Circuit in Benitez MAG Case Looks Like a LOSER [Watch]
Speaking of looking like losers…
[Via Jess]
2A WRONGLY DENIED: Washington Federal Judge DENIES Motion to Enjoin Magazine Restrictions [Watch]
Thank “RINO Sue” Collins, A+rated Chuck Grassley, Dirty Lisa Murkowski, and “Weasel Whisperer” Thom Tillis.
[Via Jess]
If … we trust you enough to drive a motor vehicle and register your driver’s license right and we’re going to opt you in to be a voter why not also opt these people in to carry guns under ccw permitting system so they get their own card that they can use across the country in relevant states that recognize through the reciprocity system those Concealed Carry Permits that are in your wallet…? [Watch]
It’s an interesting and creative thought but it’s dependent on reversing Democrat majorities and even then would be tied up in the courts for years waiting for a Supreme Court of as yet unknown composition to first agree to hear a case and then rule favorably on it.
Besides, reciprocity becomes a moot point as citizens, per SCOTUS in Dred Scott, have “the right to … keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
That and it’s hard to see how having more people voting favors anyone but ignorance-dependent Democrats. Me, I think Gov. Shapiro just signed the death warrant for PA Republican representation.
And based on his subversive gun betrayals, I think it’s deliberate sabotage by an embedded enemy.
[Via Jess]
Second Amendment Court Dates Flagged and Why They Matter to YOUR RIGHTS [Watch]
If the tens of millions of 2A-supporting gun owners were really the violent extremist threat the power monopolists and their useful idiots smear them as, does anyone really think they’d be fighting this out in court?
[Via Jess]
Always take people at their word when they say what they want to disarm you. They want to kill you. They want to do bad things to you. So when you see before the United States Supreme Court in the United States v Rahimi case, statements that say we have no right to keep in bear arms, we have no right to possess firearms, we have no right to carry firearms, we have no right to use firearms to protect ourselves, you must take these words at face value. You must take them as truth that this is what the other side truly believes. We don’t have a right to self-defense we don’t have a right to guns. We have to be disarmed. Take them at their word. [Watch]
Conversely, don’t believe a word they say when they claim no one is talking about taking your guns.
[Via Jess]
Tangentially-Related:
…the reality is they’re all basically for more gun control what’s interesting is some of the briefs are actually embracing laws at the time of our founding that had racist and odious and bigoted foundations upon which they rest, and nevertheless some of the anti-gunners are embracing these… [Watch]
Disingenuously tryin g to separate the racist motivations from the act of disarmament simply means they want us all to be slaves.
[Via 1Gat]
Illinois’s legal brief seeks to defend their recently-enacted “assault weapons” ban by arguing that the lethality of these semi-automatic firearms means that they may be banned consistent with the 2nd Amendment. Mark Smith discusses this lethality argument here. [Watch]
Because the last thing you want to do when fighting armed attackers is kill them!
Be sure to also open up Illinois’ brief and Smith’s review on Beccaria, linked under the video.
[Via Jess]
“We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances. Its reference to arms does not apply only to those arms in existence in the 18th Century… just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Thus even though the Second Amendment’s definition of arms is fixed according to the historical understanding that that general definition covers modern…modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. [Watch]
Exactly right. What I’m having trouble connecting the dots on is this:
What is that burden that the government has to bear? The government has to come forth to prove that the arms that they want to ban are not in common use.
Ignoring the first 13 words and focusing exclusively on self-defense leaves the door open to saying post-’86 machine guns are not in common use. It also means that new technological developments that the government reserves for itself will never be.
That is what I’d like to see Mr. Smith elaborate on. I believe he’s one of the few who could.
As an aside, I think the first Republican presidential candidate who promised to nominate him if any Supreme Court openings happen would gain a huge advantage with gun owners.
[Via Stephen I]
CRS FIREARMS CASE: Can this 2014 legal precedent involving ATF save Matt Hoover? [Watch]
You’d think not working would be all it took.
[Via Jess]
