Tag: Supreme Court

Connect the Dots

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court in Sackett v EPA issued a major ruling cutting back on the authority of the EPA and by extension all federal executive branch agencies such as the ATF to enact laws via regulations. The Sackett opinion contains powerful language that can likely be used against the ATF in various contexts including in the ongoing legal fights over the bump stock ban and the pistol brace rules. Mark Smith breaks it down. [Watch]

If you think about it, this is also a powerful argument against the phony “single issue” deflection.

It’s all related. That’s because it’s not about guns, it’s about freedom.

[Via Jess]

Not Now

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a request to block state and local laws barring the sale of assault-style weapons in Illinois while a group of challenges to those laws continues in the lower courts. There were no dissents publicly recorded from the unsigned order, nor did the justices provide any explanation for their decision. [More]

I’m going to resist reading more into this for now.

[Via Jess]

Oh, It’s the Safety Dance

In particular, the court explained, “the text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are unprotected.” Id. at 18. “Because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons and high-capacity magazines are particularly dangerous weapon accessories, their regulation accords with history and tradition.” [More]

So it was the Founders’ contention that only “safe” arms were “necessary to the security of a free State”?

[Via Jess]

A Plan Comes Together

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said. [More]

Don’t be surprised to see charges from a functionary of the party of citizen disarmament. They need him out before the court takes up “assault weapons.”

One Step Closer

In Washington state, House Bill 1240 was voted out of a Senate committee Tuesday, making it closer to becoming a reality. [More]

Here’s where you can track its progress.

After it passes and then wends its way through the challenges, all the Supreme Court will have to do to let it stand is… nothing.

If they do decide it’s time to resolve splits, a prayer for the continued good health of Justice Thomas wouldn’t hurt.

[Via Jess]

Point/Counterpoint

Dave, like so many others you are in error concerning Heller’s statement on the M-16. Scalia wrote that anyone who say’s M-16s and the like can be banned have de facto separated and nullified the prefatory clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” from the operative “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.” [More]

He’s leaving out the big “but” that immediately follows:

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

Previously qualified as:

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right…

I’ve posted this here because if I’m to get my other work done, I don’t have time to get embroiled in comments on AmmoLand, and besides, I get my say in the article and comments are for the readers.

And point of order…

Tyrants Gonna Tyrannize

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that struck down a federal law preventing people under domestic violence-related restraining orders from having guns. [More]

Because how better “to secure the Blessings of Liberty” than to deny rights to people who haven’t even been charged with anything, let alone convicted?

[Via bondmen]

A Good First Step

I have never given up hope that the collector’s item I got so I’d have standing will one day be surrendered back to me by ATF.

I wonder if SCOTUS will forever punt, and what the implications will be for pistol braces, forced reset triggers, and the like.

[Via WiscoDave]

The Finest Judges Money Can Buy

Yesterday we explored how Gov. Pritzker of Illinois played fast and loose with campaign finance rules to stack the state Supreme Court he is appealing his “assault weapon” ban legal setback to.

Mom-at-Arms has updated its report to prove a conflict of interest and to cite U.S. Supreme Court precedent:

Bishop On Air says “recuse.” (14:56)

Gun Sense Judges

Delaware lowers passing score on bar exam in push for racial diversity: ‘Not supposed to be a barrier’ – Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. said changes reflect ‘modernization’ of admission process [More]

Hey, if Biden can do it for the Supreme Court, what’s the big deal with his home state doing it for the locals?

[Via Michael G]

Verified by MonsterInsights