Tag: prohibited persons

On a Sauer Note

[T]he Supreme Court has just denied cert in a case where the solicitor general of the United States under Donald Trump actually wanted the court to take it. This is huge great news folks because it is signaling that the Supreme Court is done with criminals defending the right to keep and bear arms and much more likely to let law-abiding ordinary citizens vindicate their rights. This is a big deal, folks, because as you know, those 18 USC 922G cases are problematic because their bad facts make bad law. [Watch]

I’m more concerned with the fact that the SG knows that and proceeded anyway. After all, didn’t NSSF tell us, “USA Today and gun control groups [were] in a tizzy [because] U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote, ‘The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment…'”?

And Smith himself declares “Prosecutorial discretion has always been a part of our legal system.”

So why does this seem to be a tradition with “pro-gun”Republican administrations?

Never forget:

We condemn any program that involves enforcing unconstitutional “laws”, even if such “laws” are enforced only against violent criminals. Unconstitutional “laws” are illegal, harmful to public safety, tyrannical, and are inevitably enforced against ordinary, non-criminal citizens.

[Via Jess]

‘A Little Temporary Safety’

Boston gang members, associates facing slew of firearm, drug trafficking charges… “I think it goes without saying that today’s arrests and seizures have made our communities safer.” [More]

If what they did was bad enough to determine they cannot be trusted without a custodian, what difference does what firearms they had make?

Beware of laws that can be used against you and me.

[Via Edmund M]

The Way Things Oughta Be

What have we been saying all along…?

Now… what do they have to do to get that right recognized?

[Via Jess]

Report on Total Blackout

Understand that when Codrea writes “heavily redacted,” what that means is that there’s absolutely nothing of use here. They sent pages of almost nothing but black bars. [More]

Good write-up! I typically like Tom Knighton’s stuff. But why do you think the site added an “Editor’s Note” at the end?

I’m glad to see Bearing Arms is picking up on my stuff more. (I’m going to be working on my response to Cam Edwards later this week.)

Up in Smoke

Are regular marijuana users the modern equivalent of “habitual drunkards” at the Founding? What about someone who regularly takes a sleep gummy? In oral arguments before the Supreme Court today in United States v. Hemani, the federal government argues that they are the same. [More]

“Full might,” eh?

What a mess.

Anyone who can’t be trusted with weed and a gun…

Or booze and a gun…

I’m thinking Bondi needs lithium therapy…

[Via bondmen]

‘Non-Dangerous Felon’ Opinion Leaves More Immediate Danger Unresolved

The late Robert J. Kukla made a brilliant observation in his 1973 classic, Gun Control, equating the release of violent misfits from prison with opening the cage of a man-eating tiger and expecting a different result. [More]

Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.

A Proper Understanding

The State previously filed an answer brief taking the position that Appellant Christopher Morgan was properly convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On further reflection, the Attorney General is of the view that the conviction violated Morgan’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Properly understood, the Second Amendment permits the government to dispossess felons whose convictions indicate that the felon is dangerous, but not merely all felons as a categorical matter. [More]

So… which Republican AG approved that previous answer?

And point of order– it’s nice to see the insistence on punishing nonviolent offenders forever has been reconsidered, but what good does a lifetime disability on violent ones do if they’re then allowed to stalk among us?

What Is It They Want Us to Do?

Apparently the defender has a past that disqualifies him from being allowed to defend himself by those absolving themselves of custodial responsibilities. The state’s answer is clear and brief.

Be nice if there were some way citizens under similar forced disability knew what the rules were to get recognition of their rights back…

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.”