Notes from the Resistance
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?
After explaining why United States v. Miller protects arms with a reasonable relationship to militia efficiency, the brief declares that the “general consensus” is that automatic weapons are not protected. [More]
Is he a friend?
Or does he see which way the wind is blowing and is trying to secure the main infringement?
“That is the focus I would bring to an amicus brief: establishing a constitutional principle that not only prevents ‘military’ characteristics from becoming a constitutional liability, but makes them an affirmative basis for protection.” [More]
The Framers put the prefatory clause in there for a reason.
My plan is to set term limits for Supreme Court Justices at 18 years and institute an age limit of 75 across the federal bench. [More]
But no term limits for Congress…? Bernie’s still good…?
Sounds like, among other thing, she’s anticipating a SCOTUS ruling on semi-auto and magazine bans, wants Bruen overturned and loosened ATF rules tightened back up.
And why is she endorsed by the same group that endorses Abdul El-Sayed, who in turn is backed by Hasan Piker, who says “I wipe my BLEEP with the Constitution“?
Oh, and while I was looking for a suitable graphic, I ran across this gunkapo moron.
You don’t hate Democrat Fudds enough.
VanDyke argued the 9th Circuit has spent years resisting Supreme Court precedent recognizing robust Second Amendment protections, asserting that decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen have “changed nothing” in the circuit’s approach to gun-rights cases. He contended the court continues to find new doctrinal paths to uphold firearm restrictions. [More]
Since SCOTUS summary reversals of defiant inferior court decisions have not been forthcoming, it sounds like the person who needs to be publicly slapped is John Roberts.
The technical holdup is essentially one of emphasizing due process and ignoring privileges and immunities, which to a layperson seems a bit like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. [More]
There’s a more basic argument that no one is considering, where a leading authority at the time considered the Second Amendment to be a restraint on both the federal government and the states.
President Trump Petitioning SCOTUS To Rehear Birthright Citizenship Case [More]
With nothing different? But “U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (R–Woodville) introduced a bill in December 2025 to clarify the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment”…?
Prognosis 0% chance of being enacted
[Via Sweet Babboo]
Major breaking news as the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in an AR-15 and magazine ban case has just entered a huge order, which I think is going to speak as to what the court is about to do. I suspect it’s going to be a big win for AR-15s and magazines. And it’s going to aid none other than the United States Supreme Court in ultimately, in my view, ruling that all bans on AR-15, semi-automatic rifles, and AK-47s, as well as ultimately magazines, all such laws are unconstitutional. And I think the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit out of New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania is going to contribute bigly to what’s about to happen. [Watch]
Here’s hoping things become so clear that even John and Amy can’t cloud them up.
[Via Jess]
However, there is no reason to necessarily conclude the supreme court will decide this issue in the affirmative, especially with Barrett and Roberts having to be persuaded. [More]
They have shown a proclivity for leaving things to the states.
That would result in the greatest Constitutional crisis of our time, and set the trigger for the avalanche.