Notes from the Resistance
And semiautos/magazines…?
US Supreme Court cases: Highest court will not hear Illinois assault weapons ban case [More]
Don’t lose heart. This is just process.
It’s not the “historic win” the gaslighting gasbag Jay Pritzker is claiming.
It is, however, a right delayed.
[Via Herschel]
“We recognize that ‘good moral character’ is a spongy concept susceptible to abuse.” [More]
Like the definition of “pornography“? Or “woman“?
I wonder if a Second Amendment advocate who believes it is a bulwark against domestic tyranny could be disqualified…
And if that would be sufficient to bring a libel suit…
Supreme Court sides with woman forced to her knees by police when she was 83 [More]
Looks like they don’t get qualified immunity for this one, but what I’m not clear on is does the department pay or the officers themselves, or all? And will she still be alive to collect by the time this settles?
[Via Michael G]
The justices agreed to review a lower court’s ruling that revived a charge against three defendants accused of obstructing an official proceeding… Over 300 people have been charged by the Justice Department with obstructing an official proceeding in connection with the Jan. 6 riot. [More]
Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denies motion for en banc hearing of challenge against Illinois’ gun and magazine ban. “No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, and all members of the original panel have voted to deny panel rehearing,” the docket said Monday. “The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is therefore DENIED.” [More]
Will this be a catalyst for SCOTUS?
It’s fair to ask how, in anyone’s universe, such conduct would not be grounds for removal from the court, disbarment from the practice of law, and criminal prosecution. [More]
Do radical Democrat prohibitionists really want to tell tens of millions of gun owners that the courts are no longer available to them to seek redress against infringements of their fundamental rights?
Waiver of right of respondent Jay Robert Pritzker, et al. to respond filed. [More]
There’s some arrogance for ya. They figure they don’t have to answer for Illinois Supreme Court corruption. Let’s hope SCOTUS surprises them and decides to look into it.
I’m told there may be more action on this later in the week, and if so, will decide if I can address it here or if a longer article is needed.
[Via President Non_Fudd]
One decision included in the poll was Bruen, and the poll found that 67% favored the ruling, while only 33% opposed it. [More]
Landslide victory, right?
Now, how will they vote?
Or as “The Wolf” advised in Pulp Fiction… (NSFW)
US Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett just ordered the defendants in National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville to explain why the court should not enjoin Illinois’s “assault weapon” ban law. [Watch]
And again with the Barden/Sandy Hook ad intro…
[Via Jess]
New York Gun Law: NRA Wins Compensation in Supreme Court Ruling [More]
How do you read the full story? I only see a headline, a clickbait slideshow and a summary description.
I had the same problem with another link someone sent me.
I guess the answer is just avoid MSN, and in this case, it looks like they’re riffing off almost two-month-old news.
The Case That Could Destroy the Government [More]
So essentially it’s the same principle as ATF having no lawful authority to effectively “legislate” bans…? In other words, this is a case that could force government back in its delegated powers chains — if the usurpers were inclined to obey such rulings, which they’d never do without a fight unless cowed into it.
But leave it to the government control cultists at The Atlantic to act like the “swarms of officers” are the injured party here…
[Via Dan Gifford]
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]
Fifth Circuit judge defends lower-court ruling in Rahimi, domestic-violence order gun ban case [More]
Mark W. Smith explains why this sends a “powerful 2A Message To SCOTUS.”
[Via Jess]
Illinois Assault Weapons Ban Faces New Challenge… The petition argues that Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien participated in the case despite receiving campaign contributions from those who support the ban. [More]
Now I want you to remember who did the original work that made this possible:
[T]he research and publicity this article has caused has led to a petition with the US Supreme Court on Caperton V Massey grounds, which was first brought up in this piece.
Take it from someone who knows what it’s like to be “bigfooted” out of a story by the media and latecomers.
I’ll probably put something together over the weekend to give this wider exposure. In the meantime, if you see any YouTube gun influencers who don’t give credit to Mom-At-Arms, notify viewers in their video comments.
