Tag: Rahimi

While the Iron is Hot

Major breaking news: Attorney General Merrick Garland and his solicitor general are trying to strike while the iron is hot, so they think. They have just requested of the United States Supreme Court that the court take a series … of cases involving Second Amendment challenges … basically trying to take advantage of what they think is a huge win for them in the Rahimi case… [Watch]

It was a huge win. It showed just how malleable all the “good” Bruen judges, with the exception of Clarence Thomas, are.

And like all jackals, emboldened when they sense weakness, they move the circle in to attack.

[Via Jess]

The Shape of Things to Come

Supreme Court upholds law barring those with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms [More]

The decision ignored the law, and no one will be made safer.

Roberts sure was stretching it– there’s a world of difference between “misusing” and “possessing.” There was nothing comparable to a restraining order at the time of ratification — those who received due process and were convicted were removed from society.

Thomas was the only one who got it right. Leave it to Giffords’ litigation director to literally cast aspersions on a black man’s “humanity” and get away with it.

The Sentence First, Verdict Afterwards Act

Durbin, Duckworth Join Colleagues To Introduce Legislation To Protect Domestic Abuse Survivors From Gun Violence [More]

Durbin, Duckworth Join Colleagues To Introduce Legislation To Deny Constitutional Rights to the Accused — there, I fixed it for them.

No prognosis yet on GovTrack, but with a Republican House consider this political posturing by the usual gang of rights prohibitionists in anticipation of SCOTUS enraging them in Rahimi.

Assuming the GOP doesn’t blow ’24.

[Via Jess]

Jam Session

How a Second Amendment case at the Supreme Court is putting gun rights groups in a jam [More]

That’s one way to spin getting your usurping @$$ handed to you…

“If someone is dangerous enough that society can’t trust them with a gun, they should be behind bars − it’s that simple,” Pratt said.

Bingo.

Unauthorized Means Unlawful

The US Department of Justice made a major concession involving whether licensing officials working for executive agencies may exercise “discretion” over CCW permits. [Watch]

That is big.

And using that rationale, I’d argue they can’t exercise executive “discretion” in “rulemaking” not backed by legislation, either.

Or in creating new classifications of “prohibited persons.”

[Via Jess]

If Truth Be Known

The Right to Bear Arms and Terrorize Your Partner [Listen]

Or don’t. Noting who is featured and by whom, starting out with a bald-faced lie makes me not want to waste my time being lied to.

[Via Michael G]

Related UPDATE

Here’s some truth. [Watch]

But we still don’t have a decision.

Let’s hope the storm crows are wrong.

[Via Jess]

Trouble Ahead?

The Supreme Court appears inclined to uphold a federal law banning guns from those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), in the first major test of the Second Amendment at the high court this term. [More]

Looks like some of the pundits assuring us Bruen was a magic bullet may have some ‘splainin’ to do…

The question now is which of the “justices” will show the beliefs no one dared ask them about during confirmations…

UPDATE

Or maybe not.

Why We Must Punish Everyone

“He would not have been able to access that gun if we had these current laws in place,” Glenn said in an interview with The Associated Press that took place outside the Supreme Court. [More]

Why aren’t they telling us his Colorado TRO said he couldn’t get a gun?

And if “prohibited persons” can’t get guns, what’s all this about?

Not that reality and logic could ever compete with heartstring-tugging anecdotes…

[Via bondmen]

One Man’s ‘Enemy Combatant’…

Historically, at the time of the Founding, any laws that disarmed an entire category of people were limited to those individuals who remained loyal to the crown because they posed a threat to the success of the patriot cause in the Revolutionary War. Many of these people were literally considered to be enemy combatants and the total disarmament was viewed in the context of a war and the survival of a fledgling nation. Today’s laws that disarm private citizens subject to civil restraining orders must be considered in a peacetime context, where national security is not an issue. [More]

Maybe that’s why DOJ is using terms for rowdy protestors like “insurrectionists” and smearing patriots as domestic enemies…

An Unlawful Law and a Criminal Criminal Statute

The lawyers for Zaki Rahimi have filed a powerful compelling argument against the criminal statute 18 USC 922 G8 which is the question presented whether or not that is constitutional under the Second Amendment and Rahimi’s attorneys have 0:19 actually made some additional creative arguments that we’re going to talk about… [Watch]

Mark W. Smith breaks it down for us.

[Via Jess]

A Presumption of Guilt

The California Legislative Women’s Caucus called on the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to uphold domestic abuse restraining orders as it reviews a case that could permit domestic abusers the right to carry guns. [More]

If they’re proven, under full due process, to be too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, what are they doing out? And if they haven’t been, characterizing them all as “domestic abusers” in the very first sentence just shows there’s no lie or manipulation these people won’t use to disarm their countrymen, and makes fair the question “What the real motive of those behind this?”

What does it say about the Caucus’ commitment to DEI if every one of them is a “biological woman”? And why aren’t we hearing objections from the seven Republicans?

Verified by MonsterInsights