Tag: Supreme Court

A Good First Step

Top DOJ official predicts Supreme Court will declare AR-15 rifles legal everywhere in America [More]

Great, as it should be.

I don’t mean to be the party pooper, but heeding Mr. Wolf (NSFW) for a second, two concerns remain:

  • What’s going to happen when Democrat states and Democrat judges ignore it?
  • What’s going to happen when Democrats take the majority?

Assuming we can get it to stick, how does the administration sound on ending NFA and GCA mg registration and the post-’86 ban? ?

Yeah, I know, there I go blackpilling again. Just ignore me and have some rainbow stew.

A Dose of Reality

[T]he last thing we want, the last thing we in the Second Amendment community want, as I see it, is for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, or for any circuit for that matter, to come out right now, now at least, and say that machine guns are protected under the Second Amendment… We do not want that next case going to the Supreme Court involving machine guns. [More]

We will never get an unequivocal “shall not be infringed” unless and until there is a credible “or else” attached to the demand.

[Via Jess]

The Big Day is Finally Here!

The Second Amendment’s Big Day at the Supreme Court [Watch]

We’re told to be on the lookout for Duncan v. Bonta, Gators Custom Guns v. Washington, Viramontes v. Cook County, NAGR v. Lamont, Grant v. Higgins, Gardner v. Maryland, Peterson v. United States, and Hunter v. S.F.

I see none granted cert and the rest ignored ot denied. Double-check me in case I missed something.

I’m gonna start calling SCOTUS the Ruala.

[Via Jess]

Supreme Court ‘Conservatives’ Throw Gun Owners Under the Bus, Again

On April 6, the Supreme Court demonstrated once again that the “landmark” Bruen decision isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, and neither are the paper tigers that President Trump appointed to the bench in his previous administration. [More]

The list just keeps growing.

As noted before:

Think of one job you’ve ever applied for where you’d have gotten it if you decided to play coy with the hiring managers. While it may be “inappropriate” for a judge to weigh in on a specific case before confirmation, there’s no reason why general principles of understanding should be off-limits.

This is My Shocked Face

New York City’s Prohibition on Stun Guns, Tasers Survives Appeal [More]

And here we thought the Supreme Court was pretty clear whan it ruled:

The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Until such @$$hole judges face consequences, this kind of crap will continue.

Assuming you don’t want to pay Bloomberg Law to read their spin, Four Boxes Diner breaks things down for us.

[Via Jess]

You Pays Your Money and You Takes Your Chances

SCOTUS Lets Illinois Public Transit Carry Ban Stand, Leaving a Dangerous “Sensitive Places” Theory in Place [More]

Hey, none of them have to take the bus.

Remember the good old days before Democrats f_d it all up?

Defense against highwaymen in Colonial America and the early American frontier involved a combination of armed passengers, specialized weaponry, and defensive tactics, as stagecoaches were frequently targeted for mail, cash, and passenger valuables… A common weapon for guarding coaches was the blunderbuss, a short-barreled shotgun-like firearm ideal for close-quarters combat.

Silent Running

Attorneys for George Peterson have filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in Peterson v. United States, a Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)-backed challenge to the federal government’s unconstitutional National Firearms Act (NFA) tax and registration requirements for suppressors. [More]

Now all SCOTUS has to do to let bad law stand is…nothing.

[Via Jess]

Fair Weather Comrades

The rule is, if you side with us, we coddle you. Go against our pet projects—climate change, COVID policy, Obamacare, trans-weirdness of any kind, censorship of dis-, mis-, mal-information, etc.—and we try to destroy you. [More]

They actually take things beyond that– the goal is power, and in order to get it, the tool for outrage du jour is ignorable and expendable if it interferes with the greater agenda.

Once the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is established, who thinks the Bolsheviks won’t start culling Mensheviks?

Who thinks, once power is secured, the pronoun people won’t be the first to go?

[Via bondmen]

Insensitive Places

[A]s Bruen explained, larger, open places like cities, sidewalks, and parks cannot be considered sensitive places because it would effectively nullify the Second Amendment right to categorically exclude them from its coverage. [More]

Thanks for throwing your fellow gun-grabbers under the public transit bus!

Now acknowledge that even with closed space “protection,” “it’s”Only Ones” who claimed credit for stopping attacks have been reported to be hiding while a citizen subdued the attacker, and then there’s the not insignificant matter of making it to or from the “sensitive area” in one piece.

[Via Jess]

Common Law

And candidly, what you see in states such as Virginia and New Mexico and Colorado, the new Johnny come latelys, will not cease to stop until the United States Supreme Court finally shows it has a backbone, puts its foot down, and once and for all defends the common use doctrine. [Watch]

No post-’86 full autos or new technological developments exclusively reserved for the standing army for you, militia.

Avoiding the Issue

The Court selects what it will hear. It grants or denies petitions for writs of certiorari at its discretion. And although Supreme Court Rule 10 pretends to supply a neutral architecture for that discretion, the reality is that Rule 10 functions as a judicial escape hatch—a convenient justification for declining the very cases that demand intervention. In no domain is this more destructive than in Second Amendment litigation. [More]

Good article.

W appointee John Roberts is the biggest impediment, and it’s calculated.

Jeez, it’s almost like my concerns 20 years ago were legit.

As we’ve noted many times before, real recognition of the right to keep and bear arms won’t happen unless there’s a credible “or else” backing up the demand.