Tag: Supreme Court

Q&A

The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in birthright citizen case with implications for 2A. [Watch]

I was hoping some prominent voice in the gun adovcacy community would finally address how immigration demographics threaten 2A, but no such luck. Instead, we get Sonia Sotomayor disingenuously playing devil’s advocate for nationwide injunctions by asking what would happen if a president ordered gun bans and confiscations.

The answer wouldn’t be a legal one.

It hasn’t been done because they wouldn’t dare.

[Via Jess]

Coalition of the Willing

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has joined a 26-state coalition urging the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to intervene in a legal challenge to Hawaii’s firearms law, Act 52, which restricts the carrying or possession of firearms in various public and private locations deemed “sensitive,” such as parks, beaches, bars, and financial institutions. [More]

Good, but there are more pressing issues that affect ALL of us.

In the meantime, Hawaiians can just do what I did for @ 30 years in California…

[Via Jess]

The Spirit of Aloha

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen led a 26-state coalition today asking the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to intervene and halt Hawaii’s unconstitutional gun ban which prohibits the carry or possession of firearms in designated “sensitive” places, including bars and restaurants serving alcohol, parks and beaches, banks and financial institutions, and other areas. [More]

Why it’s even necessary speaks volumes of the mindset that votes to be ruled.

[Via Jess]

Bondi Steps Up

Stephen Stamboulieh brings us some good news about Pam Bondi and DOJ doing something necessary and good by filing a brief in support of the Second Amendment, noting Hawaii trying to ban guns on private property without specific owner permnission effectively equates to a gun ban practically everywhere. This is a hopeful sign and we need to see more like this.

The challenge is another example of great legal navigation and piloting by Alan Beck.

As an aside, this is how “guntubing” ought to be, a subject matter authority articuately sharing knowledge and guidance, as opposed to mansplaining the work of others for clicks.

And pay attention to this, @ 7:15 in:

The Ninth Circuit needs to be broken up as a court. It’s too big, it’s way too powerful, and it does some really stupid things that we’re going to talk about in my 7 o’clock live tonight where I just lost $400,000 in that case.

That’s something we’ve talked about before.

Counting Eggs

Supreme Court’s “Ghost Gun” Ruling Accidentally Paves Way For Next-Gen 80% Firearms [More]

Don’t go celebrating the workaround just yet.

Another lawsuit and another injunction and we’re back to Square One. And if “common use” is the new standard, I wouldn’t be looking at “uncommon tools” as a solution.

[Via bondmen]

An Age-Old Question

In a case that could potentially have far-reaching implications for similar lawsuits across the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied Minnesota’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Jacobson v. Worth, the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) challenge to the 18-20-year-old carry ban in the state…The high court’s refusal to hear the case means the Eighth Circuit’s ruling stands as a final judgment, confirming SAF’s win. [More]

Now, how do we change “could” to “will”?

Supreme Court Watch

We’re awaiting word on Snope/Ocean State tactical, and if SCOTUS is going to make a decisoin or once more kick the can down the road. Meanwhile, here are some sobering thoughts:

This is especially frustrating to watch after feeling like I’m the lone voice in the wilderness warning that relying solely on “self defense” while ignoring the militia aspect makes 2A more vulnerable to infringements, and how putting all faith in the “in common use at the time” argument can be a trap.

[Via Jess]

Proximate Cause

[T]he proximate-cause issue, in limbo will result in continuing legal uncertainty and ongoing attacks on the industry facilitated by courts that are allowing the most extreme theories of proximate cause in which remoteness is disregarded. [More]

The antis and their robed agents on the bench are counting on it.

Me, I’m still wondering which “State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product” is legitimately Constitutional.

[Via Michael G]

What’s the Difference Between a Diktat and an Edict?

When Bureaucrats Rewrite Law: What the Supreme Court’s Ghost Gun Ruling Means for Gun Owners & Small Businesses~ Deep Dive [More]

This, and the podcast it reports on, merit wider gun owner congnizance.

The only thing I would add is that those “consistent governing laws” being called for are illegitimate if they infringe.

It Depends Upon What the Meaning of the Word ‘Infringe’ Is

The US Supreme Court refused to question New York’s 2022 gun restrictions, including the state’s limits on concealed-carry licenses and its ban on weapons in buses, parks and crowded venues. The justices without comment turned away an appeal by six New York residents who said the restrictions infringe the Constitution’s Second Amendment and fly in the face of recent Supreme Court rulings bolstering gun rights. [More]

As noted many times before over the years, all the Supreme Court has to do to allow blatant infringements of our fundamental rights to prevail is… nothing.

People in power don’t give it up unless there’s a credible “or else” behind demands.

[Via Dan Gifford]

Verified by MonsterInsights