Notes from the Resistance
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?
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.