Tag: prohibited persons

A Change of Heart?

Judge Easterbrook then turned to the government’s position directly: “The United States contends that § 922(g)(4) is valid even with respect to persons who were never dangerous or who have recovered. That approach is hard to square with Heller, McDonald, Bruen, Rahimi, Hemani, and Wolford.” [More]

Considering what Easterbrook has said in the past, that’s an amazing turnaround.

Don’t Die for a Data Lie

Dramatics aside, it’s a known fact that any interactions with law enforcement, no matter how mundane, escalate the chances of a negative and potentially life-threatening outcome. Armed agents of the State with qualified immunity, taking someone by surprise over what is likely to be a bookkeeping error? [More]

So “false positives” have the potential to be much more than  inconvenient delays?

At least it’s bipartisan!

DOJ Withholds Rights Restoration Records Citing Privacy Concerns

FOIA Gibson Gun Rights Restoration

The need to apply consistent criteria is not only a matter of basic fairness, but of law. [More]

The very first comment needs to be addressed. With an initial estimate of 50 FTEs processing applications, the need to minimize subjectivity and establish consistency should be self-evident, especially noting how DOJ has shown it can still be all over the board on 2A, even under a “pro-gun administration.”

Further noting this is a rule and not a law, it’s not hard to see how lack of clear criteria could allow all kinds of negative dispositions under a new administration for those applicatons already in the pipeline before it terminates the program altogether.

Getting Warmer…

The US Supreme Court decision in Hemani offers great support to the 2A challenges to Virginia gun ban laws. [Watch]

He’s right when he observes “shall not be infringed” must be viewed and argued in the context of what The Framers would have considered to be infringements when it comes to “dangerous and unusual.”

I’d like to see him acknowledge that “in common use at the time” needs to include arms that standing army soldiers deploy with, not just what’s commercially popular, because otherwise, the machinegun ban will continue and any new developments in arms technology will be withheld from We the People.

And the bottom line is, prohibition does not work in a society that has rights, and you need to amp up the totalitarianism to where it does. If someone can’t be trusted with a gun…

[Via Jess]

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…