Notes from the Resistance
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit out of Missouri has denied a request to hear en banc a 2nd Amendment argument by a criminal defendant who was charged with violating 18 USC 922(g)1, i.e., the ban on felons in possession of firearms law. However, four judges issued a vigorous dissent in which they called into question the constitutionality of 922(g)1. [More]
It sounds like some may be amenable to applying The Law.
[Via Jess]
Unlawfully usurping authority isn’t the only thing the government is trying to hide in this case, and by that, I mean in relation to guns. [More]
Two big questions concerning unlawful government practices allegations will remain unanswered if a stonewalling DOJ has it’s way and Republicans continue their deliberate indifference.
The complaint was filed by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh on behalf of this correspondent to compel the Department to produce information regarding “consent to a permanent entry in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).” [More]
Expanding the rules without lawfully delegated authority and based just on their own say-so seems to be the way with these autocratic functionaries.
Addressed to the Office of the Attorney General, the request notes a commitment by Biden to “consent to a permanent entry in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System such that he will be denied via NICS if he attempts to legally purchase another firearm.” [More]
Separation of powers? We ain’t got no separation of powers. We don’t need no separation of powers. I don’t have to show you any stinking separation of powers.
Since DeJesus is a convicted felon, it is illegal for him to have a gun or ammunition. [More]
Why? If he’s truly too dangerous to have one, why was he out?
Same question for this guy…
And I see prohibition is working as effectively as ever.
[Via bondmen]
Thus, pursuant to 34 U.S.C. § 40901(e)(1)(D), we hereby notify you, and thereby make you “aware” that the “basis” on which signers of the NICS Indices Self-Submission Form have been reported to NICS “does not apply.” Thus, pursuant to you your duties under the statute, we respectfully request that the FBI: (i) identify and “remove” records from its “database” relating to those who have signed the FBI form; (ii) that the FBI (under the authority of the Attorney General) “remove” the offending records from the NICS system;4 and (iii) that the FBI halt its use of the illegal and unconstitutional NICS Indices Self-Submission Form. [More]
Funny, how the form doesn’t include a Miranda warning that anything they sign can and will be used against them in a court of law and that they have a right to an attorney. The workaround appears to be that the signers haven’t been convicted or “adjudicated” of anything (yet).
You’d think the FixNICSers would be focused on industry customers being tyrannized and coerced instead of cheerleading registration-enabling prior restraints imposed by their “partners.”
Any bets on getting the requested reply in 30 days, or do Christopher Wray et al. figure as long as Democrats control things there’s no danger of personal repercussions, they have an inexhaustible legal war chest at their disposal, and if the Republicans do manage not to blow it, the “leadership” won’t pursue things thoroughly enough to actually punish anyone?
Or will they get right on it as soon as the frog march Hunter Biden for lying twice?
Weeks after she was denied a protection order, a Michigan woman and her family are dead – A judge denied the order June 27, saying there was insufficient evidence of immediate or irreparable injury. The woman and her family were found dead Sunday, officials said. [More]
The prohibitionists will say this proves the need for “red flag laws.”
Who thinks a piece of paper would have stopped this maniac or prevented him from getting his hands on whatever he wanted for a butchery spree?
Look what they (purposely) didn’t tell us when they report he “bought a gun.”
The only way to prevent such atrocities, proven once more, is to separate the threat from the victim pool. With full due process.
That may not be foolproof? Anybody see any guarantees in life? And a system could be set up that would do that and do a much better job of considering individual circumstances and probabilities than one-size-fits-all prior restraints.
The alternative is denying rights to the innocent. We call governments that do that “tyrannical” for a reason. We’re supposed to accept that because of statistically rare aberrations lawmakers refuse to more effectively address, mostly for political reasons?
[Via Steve T]
