Notes from the Resistance
The NFA is constitutional because it’s “a modest burden” and not a ban [More]
The Second Amendment does not say “shall not be banned.” It says “shall not be infringed.” Even modestly.
Unless you’re one of the “smartest people in the room” who buy into the Trump/Bondi DOJ is playing super secret 3D chess with court rules that they can’t tell us about, and it will all work out in the end, honest…
Then ask why they’re not pushing SBRs.
Celebrity YouTuber cites Supreme Court gun ruling in bid to dismiss machine gun charges [More]
I’m not seeing how the most effective arguments can be considered with zero mentions of “militia.” That makes me wonder about the Second Amendment law track record the attorneys have achieved.
Don’t get me wrong: I think “shall not be infringed” and “every terrible implement of the soldier” should be all you need to win, but I wouldn’t take that into court unless I had a lot more behind it.
I’d like to see some qualified voices weigh in on the viability of the motion and the risks of establishing any precedents that could complicate future efforts if it fails.
[Via Antigone]
[T]he Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public. The Court also notes that the Town’s justifications are somewhat undermined by the other subsections of this very provision. Specifically, subsection (b)(1) provides that “[a]ny person holding a valid federal firearms license from possession of any firearm authorized pursuant to such license” will not be subject to the prohibition of 10-9-40. The following subsection, (b)(2) likewise exempts any “firearm for which the U.S. Government has issued a stamp or permit pursuant to the National Firearms Act.” The National Firearms Act, referenced in the latter subsection, provides for permitting such firearms as short-barreled shotguns and rifles, machineguns, and silencers. Each of those weapons is arguably even more deadly than the semi-automatic weapons that the Town of Superior seeks to ban, yet these provisions would permit individuals to possess, sell, or otherwise transfer them. [More]
Let’s see if any of the NAGR critics are willing to grudgingly admit they’re doing good here.
[Via Antigone]
Hoover’s lawyers asked Howard last week to rule that the National Firearms Act, a 1934 law that restricted machine gun ownership by creating a tax and license requirement on them, conflicts with the U [sic] Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantee of a right to bear arms. [More]
If the standard is whether NFA is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding, of course, it conflicts.
Whether the rulers will admit that or not is a whole ‘nother story.
[Via Jess]
