Tag: prohibited persons

And What Are We Gonna Do About It?

We Caught FBI Using “Minority Report Style” Secret Form Pressuring Gun Owners To Forfeit Their Rights [More]

Here’s the thing: They refuse to identify where they get the authority to create an unlegislated class of prohibited person and if we pursue a lawsuit they will fight paying attorney fees if we win.

[Via bondmen]

Restoration Project

About two weeks ago, Ms. Oyer was put on a working group to restore gun rights to people convicted of crimes, she said. [More]

Four Boxes Diner explains the significance.

See, it’s not “prickly” at all, Mel.

Well, maybe for NRA President “Lautenberg Bob” Barr…

[Via Jess]

Setting the Stage for Trump v. Bondi?

Because Trump’s convictions involved crimes that were notionally punishable by more than a year of incarceration, they made him subject to a federal law that bars him from possessing firearms. [More]

But not the nuclear football…

I do wonder– if he challenged this – would his AG defend the law and fight him…?

[Via Dan Gifford]

When Courts Collide

Based on the above four cases, the cert conflict could not be more dramatic. Range and Williams allow as-applied challenges to the felon ban. Jackson and Hunt categorically allow no challenge to the ban. Since felons are the overwhelming majority of persons prosecuted under § 922(g), resolution by the Supreme Court is direly needed. [More]

The fiction, of course, being that truly dangerous felons require any court’s sanction, and that a higher law they won’t acknowledge doesn’t nonetheless hold true…

[Via Michael G]

The Felon in Chief?

Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump to “unconditional discharge,” meaning no jail, no probation and no fine. But the sentence will still formally make Trump the first criminal convict ever to occupy the Oval Office. [More]

We’ll see what happens with an appeal.

In the meantime, is a “prohibited person” in charge of ATF?

Unsecuring the Blessings of Liberty

Because alleged domestic abusers pose a clear threat of violence, the measure is constitutional under the high court’s United States v. Rahimi ruling, Judge Jerry E. Smith said for the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. [More]

If they’re “alleged,” that hasn’t been proven and depriving them of their rights is tyranny.

If it has been proven that they pose a clear threat, leaving them free to victimize is unconscionable.

Any government that would do this to its citizens has delegitimized itself.

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights