Notes from the Resistance
SCOTUS gives U.S. solicitor general permission to argue against gun ban [More]
Tell us again how Democrats could be sucked hard enough to do this.
Anybody figure out yet if this Viramontes character was a Democrat plant intended to withdraw and sabotage standing at the last minute, and just what amount of character checking those who bet the donations on him did? Their major energy right now appears to be scrambling to save face by assuring us all is fine.
[Via Jess]
The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding a motion to dismiss by Cook County in the Viramontes v. Cook County AR15 ban case. [Watch]
WTF, Cutberto…? You get everybody counting on you and then you drop out without comment?
Did any of his backers check this flake out first?
[Via Jess]
Smith’s reasoning is that once Democrats take control of the Senate on January 3, 2027, there is no way another Trump nominee would be confirmed if a court vacancy arose, and if Democrats go on to hold the legislature and win the White House in 2028, future vacancies will be filled by confirmed anti-gunners. [More]
While it’s inarguable that if Republicans don’t move now it will be too late if a high court vacancy occurs, with this bunch it’s also fair to assume that if they try it, turncoats will screw it up.
189 Democrats presume authority to deny our unalienable rights. [More]
And no, Mr. President. The last thing Republican need is Fetterman:
You’d know that if your “Task Force” was more than a stage prop.
[Via Jess]
Virginia AG: ‘AR-15s Are Machine Guns Except That They’ Are Not [More]
Doesn’t this guy have some Republicans and children to wish killed?
[Via Michael G]
Gun-Control Groups Ask Supreme Court to Gut Bruen and Strip AR-15s of Second Amendment Protection [More]
But nobody’s talking about taking your guns…
The thing about Bowie knife bans… those were local and decided by inferior courts. SCOTUS never weighed in. Of course it’s a “protected arm.”
“Every terrible implement of the soldier” is.
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Los Angeles Business Owner’s Case Seeking Compensation After SWAT Team Destroyed Shop [More]
Why was the name of the suspected being pursued never released? Who wants to bet against it being someone well-known to the system and released multiple times back onto the streets? Should there be no liability for that?
A quote from a memorialized Democrat comes to mind.
[Via Michael G]
Now, I want to remind all of you one thing in the Second Amendment community. We do not want violent criminal thugs to have guns. We also do not want whackadoodle nut job psychopaths to be armed. [Watch]
That’s true.
As long as we’re using the royal “we,” we also don’t want Red Queen Laws. We don’t believe citizen disarmament edicts stop dangerous people from getting guns. And we don’t believe in enforcing existing Intolerable Acts.
[Via Jess]
TWO MONTHS OUT: Assault Weapon Ban Challenges Head to SCOTUS on December 2, Here’s What You Need to Know [More]
That the gun-grab zealots are lying when they say “AR-15s … were originally designed to give soldiers maximum firepower to overwhelm enemies on the battlefield.”:
“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”
That they won’t stop at AR-15s:
Of Course They’re Talking about Taking Your Guns
That they’d rather see you dead than armed…
[Via Jess]
Supreme Court Declines Case On Concealed Carry Across State Lines [More]
As noted before, all the High Court has to do to let bad law stand is… nothing.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) joined the National Rifle Association in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States, urging the Court to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision upholding a lifetime federal firearms ban for nonviolent felons. [More]
They’re finally sharing credit.
Trump notches huge deportation victory at U.S. Supreme Court – 6-3 decision says removals to third-party nations to be allowed [More]
Sounds like “Rhetoric straight from the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally. Vile anti-American trash that’s also deeply unpopular,” at least to some.
But it ain’t over yet. Their final ruling better get this right or I can see Democrat judges ordering we bring them back.
[Via Jess]
The New Republic: Idea that Citizens Are Armed to Fight Tyranny a ‘Pop Constitutional Concept’ [More]
Those who would rewrite history are counting on those who never studied it believing them.
What does that — and the fact that they want you disarmed — tell you about them?
There’s a reason I call these wormtongues the DSM.
[Via bondmen]
If you’re not old enough to buy a beer, you shouldn’t be able to buy a handgun. But today, Trump’s Department of Justice released a dangerous opinion claiming that the life-saving federal law that stops people under 21 from buying handguns is unconstitutional and shouldn’t be enforced. [More]
Don’t tell us.
“The more effective an arm is for the purposes for which a militia would require arms, the harder it should be to argue that its effectiveness somehow removes it from constitutional protection.” [More]
The Framers knew that and we know that. The tyranny-minded who want to ban them know that, too.
Supreme Court Sets Dec. 2 Arguments in AR-15 Ban Cases as DOJ Backs Gun Owners [More]
Their decisions, when they make it, will set the stage for what comes next.
As will your decision.
“Arms that bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… lie at the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, and a State may not prohibit them,” the brief concludes. “A prohibition imposed because those arms are useful for the common defense is contrary to the Second Amendment’s text, purpose, and history.” [More]
How could a Militia with inferior weapons to a standing army fulfill the intent of the Founders as “being necessary to the security of a free State”? This paves the way for more than AR-15s.
This is the brief I’ve been waiting for.
A long-haul truck driver is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Minnesota can shut off his right to bear arms the moment his rig crosses the state line—even though he holds valid carry permits from two other states. [More]
And all SCOTUS has to do to let denial of rights under color of authority continue is… nothing.
Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. [More]
You know the answer to that and I know the answer to that.
The question isn’t so much how many Supreme Court Justices know the answer to that as how many will not willingly subvert the Constitution and betray their countrymen?