Tag: prohibited persons

A Forward Progression

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has submitted a comment letter to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in support of a proposed rights restoration rule. [More]

They raise a good point:

However, there are some aspects of the Proposed Rule which do not go far enough. As courts have confirmed, the main requirement for disarming Americans—what must be present before they may be disenfranchised from their Second Amendment rights—is ongoing dangerousness.

You know how I feel about ongoing dangerousness.

Sounds Like a Predetermined Outcome to Me

Justices agree to review federal law banning drug users from possessing guns [More]

I see the Trump/Bondi DOJ is selectively defending infringements again.

Could there be a less sympathetic defendant than “a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, who was indicted in 2023 on a single count of violating the guns-and-drugs law after the FBI found a 9mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine at his family home” ?

Am I wrong to suspect a way to erode the text, history, and tradition standard and guarantee bad precedent with a case centered on what would have been pretty much an anachronism at the time of the founding?

[Via Jess]

Let the Door Hit Ya

Not so proud to be American — ‘fed up’ expats renounce citizenship [More]

They sound like guns wouldn’t do ’em much good anyway:

What a goose-like fool:

“This government is so vindictive,” the man said. “It’s such a changed country from the one I left behind.”

Yeah, cancel culture did flourish under Biden. The sanctimonious weakling oughta feel right at home with the Brit government threatening to prosecute Americans who run afoul of the speech tyranny it imposes on its subjects.

After all, they lead the world!

Complaint Filed After DOJ Fails to Respond to Rights Restoration FOIA Request

Why were those 10 citizens chosen? What do they have that “we” don’t? Or more to the point, what do we also have that they do? [More]

Why, when there’s an easy way, does the “pro-gun” DOJ so often choose the hard way?

There Oughta Be a Law

A “career criminal” is facing federal charges in Minnesota after he allegedly went on an armed carjacking spree Thursday morning that ended when he slammed a vehicle into another car. Prosecutors said the crash killed two women in their twenties and seriously injured a 6-year-old boy. [More]

45 and still pulling this $#!+… in spite of those prior restraints on you and me.

Those who kept letting him go share culpability.

Tangentially Related:

Decarlos Brown Jr. says “Hold my malt liquor.”

Judged by 12

Deadly triple shooting at apartment complex stemmed from robbery, Sacramento sheriff says… The sheriff’s office said all four men involved in the shooting had prior felony convictions and were prohibited from possessing guns. [More]

Being on probation with an ankle monitor was a nice touch.

And yeah, he absolutely had a right to defend himself. If they all had been in custodial care where they belong, guns would not have been part of the equation.

Why is it I get the feeling the goal isn’t really to reduce “gun violence”?

[Via DL]

Hold That Tiger

There are some behaviors so aberrant, some crimes so vicious, and some consciences so amoral that it can never be safe to allow a congenital predator unfettered access to a potential victim pool and not expect that innocents will be attacked. [More]

My latest American Handgunner “Second Amendment” column is out.

House Upon the Sand

Why Can’t Laura Loomer Own A Gun? I Asked Her Father Jeff, And The FBI [More]

Not taking sides here, just saying this is out there and needs to be factored into credibility assessments. If true, careful relying on her judgments. If untrue, it would seem a massive libel suit is in order.

I’ve never been one for following personalities anyway, regardless of what they profess. Just like ad hominem attacks, it’s a logical fallacy to go the other way, and disappointment in finding feet of clay can be destructive to more than just the icon outed.

Case in point…the principles of Oath Keepers are still valid and needed regardless of what anyone chooses to believe about its founder.

Blasts from the Past

Armed Attorneys Richard Hayes and Edwin Walker discuss The Tragedy That Broke the Background Check System.This is about more than just erroneous firearm denials—it’s about a federal policy change that’s leading to massive Second Amendment infringements, and a branch of the ATF most people have never heard of. [More]

So… Fix NICS isn’t everything the quislings at NSSF crack it up to be…?

I look forward to an editorial from Larry Keane explaining how it would comport with Bruen’s text, history, and tradition standard.

[Via Jess]

It Depends Upon What the Meaning of the Word ‘Permanent’ Is

Petitioner contends (Pet. 7-21) that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to her by subjecting her to “permanent” disarmament based on a years-old conviction for a nonviolent felony. Pet. 15. That contention lacks merit. The Department of Justice recently revitalized an administrative process under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) through which convicted felons can regain their ability to possess firearms. Given that process, petitioner cannot show (Pet. 15) that Section 922(g)(1) subjects her to “permanent” disarmament. [More]

Yeah, well, it would help if you guys who make noises that 2A is not a “second class right” would let everybody know what the non-arbitrary criteria are, but as yet you’ve ignored my FOIA request well past the statutory deadline. Are you going to make me file a complaint and then drag that on forever just like the Democrats? And then further discourage such rightful fact-finding by denying recovery of attorney fees?

Sorry if I can’t knee-jerk spin this as a positive. Because this really doesn’t tell us “how,” and a right delayed is a right denied.

[Via Jess]

A Right Denied

Could tracking denied gun sales help prevent tragedies? Experts think so [More]

And by “experts,” “real reporter” Alison Sherry means billionaire-bankrolled citizen disarmament fanatics like Tom Sullivan.

I may write more on this, because there’s plenty to unpack.

[Via Jess]

Our Hero!

This was a heroic action by the employee and undoubtedly saved who knows how many lives. [More]

So the position of the industry is “gun control” works but NICS needs a vigilante assist?

Doesn’t that also play into the hands of lawfaring gun-grabbers who argue dealers without psychic abilities are negligent and liable? And can they still do that if the person is the “wrong” color?

I note they’re prosecuting the guy for lying on the 4473. Guess he didn’t have the right dad.

At Least Their Consistency is Inconsistent

We hold that § 5-133(b)(2) is, in substance, a law prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons and, as such, is consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. [More]

Then they should have no problem coming up with an upheld parallel from the time of ratification. Either that or they’re just robed frauds.

And it doesn’t change a basic truth, does it?

[Via Antigone]

Tangentially-Related UPDATE

New York says hold our beer. [Watch]

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights