Tag: prohibited persons

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]

I Have Some Good News and Some Bad News

From the Department’s perspective, regardless of whether the Second Amendment requires an individualized restoration process for persons subject to 18 U.S.C. 922(g), 18 U.S.C. 925(c) reflects an appropriate avenue to restore firearm rights to certain individuals who no longer warrant such disability based on a combination of the nature of their past criminal activity and their subsequent and current law-abiding behavior while screening out others for whom full restoration of firearm rights would not be appropriate. [More]

The first part is fine. We need to understand how more than a select few can qualify.

As for those “others,” when are they going to learn?

Follow instructions under “ADDRESSES” to submit your comment.

[Via Jess]

FOIA Request Seeks to Determine DOJ Decision-Making for Firearms Disability Relief Actions

It’s with an eye toward determining how these 10 choices were selected for DOJ’s initial offering that prompted this FOIA request. [More]

Let’s see if the new, improved “Second Amendment Task Force” DOJ will be any better at responding to these things than it was under the Biden regime.

What’s To Decide?

The matter began when Philpotts, while facing rape charges, was convicted of a weapons charge in 2018. The charge, possessing weapons under disability, often means a person convicted of a violent crime cannot have a firearm. In Philpotts’ case, he was merely accused of a violent crime. The rape charges against him were later dropped, but his firearm conviction remained. [More]

That would appear to be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with no gunsers.

[Via JG]

Speaking of Equal Protection…

Mel Gibson Got His Gun Rights Back, but Millions of Americans With No History of Violence Are Still Waiting [More]

Particularly those Americans who didn’t back away from the issue because they found it “prickly”…

But the big question: How does NRA President and Lautenberg Amendment supporter Bob Barr feel about it?

[Via Michael G]

News You Can Wipe With

The Justice Department is releasing plans to create a process for those with criminal convictions to restore their gun this decision sparking alarm that it will return firearms of those of convicted violent crimes… [Watch]

Make sure you take a look at the comments under the Queen City “News” video.

Sir Wilfrid has a question:

[Via Jess]

California’s ‘Control Me Because I Can’t Control Myself’ Bill

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a system to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to, and subsequently remove their own name from, the California Do Not Sell List, with the purpose of preventing the sale or transfer of a firearm to the person who adds their name, as specified. [More]

So… what the hell are they doing out without a custodian?

“Voluntary,” of course, means coereced to keep from having worse charges filed. Hey, why should people who don’t respect the Second Amendment care about the Fifth?

The feds tried this crap and never did explain where they get the authority from.

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights