Notes from the Resistance
A challenge against Maryland’s gun ban is likely to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court before gun ban challenges from other states. [More]
Sadly, all the high court has to do to let it stand is nothing.
If they do hear it, it will be a game-changer, but it will still leave the more fundamentally destructive NFA and Hughes Amendment in play.
Then there are the questions of when will they hear such a case, and who will be in power and appointing justices?
[Via Jess]
Why does the Court lower the bar for the First Amendment, but not the Second Amendment? Why does free speech require “breathing room” but self-defense does not? [More]
They’re working on “fixing” that.
[Via Michael G]
Mexico Asks US Supreme Court To Allow Its $10 Billion Lawsuit Against US Gun Makers [More]
And the only people urging us to boycott Mexico are environmentalcases at the Center for Biological Diversity…?
And I don’t suppose a countersuit’s an option…?
[Via bondmen]
The question before the courts should be simple: How did people at the time of the Constitution’s ratification define “arms”? [More]
“Weapons of war” are precisely what the Founders had in mind.
The Supreme Court refused to hear any Second Amendment cases as of now. So, why did they do this and what is the future of 2A Supreme Court litigations. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains. [Watch]
Paint it how you like, but when policies and procedures override the reasons articulated in the Preamble for having them, something’s broken. You know it’s “shall not be infringed,” they know it’s “shall not be infringed,” and the traitors know it’s “shall not be infringed.”
We weren’t made to be ruled by hobgoblins, robed or otherwise.
[Via Jess]
Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled. [More]
[Via Antigone]
The justices in a 6-3 vote on nonideological lines handed a win to defendant Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants — including former President Donald Trump — who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding over the effort to prevent Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory. [More]
That’s great news. But once again, Amy Coney Barrett casts doubt on her appointment.
She gave us Bruen, but as the saying goes, “What has she done for us lately?”
While Barrett’s confirmation should give gun owners a degree of hope and should certainly be viewed as more positive than a Biden nominee being placed on the High Court, we’ll need to wait and see if the gun groups or the gun-grabbers are right in their assessments. Republican appointments have disappointed in the past. Warren Burger and David Souter coming to mind.
Back to J6, that means hundreds have been falsely accused, arrested, prosecuted,and imprisoned. Who will pay?
Democrats are still out there smearing them as insurrectionists and traitors.
The Court ruled 6-3 that the plaintiffs, a group of conservative states and social media users, had no standing to sue the federal government over its attempts to influence the censorship policies of social media giants. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the opinion of the court, but Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented. [More]
Is it unfair to wonder whose got what on turncoat “conservatives”?
Major breaking news: Attorney General Merrick Garland and his solicitor general are trying to strike while the iron is hot, so they think. They have just requested of the United States Supreme Court that the court take a series … of cases involving Second Amendment challenges … basically trying to take advantage of what they think is a huge win for them in the Rahimi case… [Watch]
It was a huge win. It showed just how malleable all the “good” Bruen judges, with the exception of Clarence Thomas, are.
And like all jackals, emboldened when they sense weakness, they move the circle in to attack.
[Via Jess]
Supreme Court upholds law barring those with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms [More]
The decision ignored the law, and no one will be made safer.
Roberts sure was stretching it– there’s a world of difference between “misusing” and “possessing.” There was nothing comparable to a restraining order at the time of ratification — those who received due process and were convicted were removed from society.
Thomas was the only one who got it right. Leave it to Giffords’ litigation director to literally cast aspersions on a black man’s “humanity” and get away with it.
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Hawaii resident Christopher L. Wilson’s petition for a writ of certiorari in his challenge of the Hawaii state Supreme Court’s decree that individual citizens in the Aloha State do not have the right to carry firearms for self-defense outside of their homes. [More]
If government can say you don’t have it there, it can say you don’t have it anywhere.
“Relying exclusively on history and tradition may seem like a way of avoiding judge-made tests,” she wrote in a concurring opinion. “But a rule rendering tradition dispositive is itself a judge-made test. And I do not see a good reason to resolve this case using that approach rather than by adopting a generally applicable principle.” [More]
Between this, Gorsuch playing for the other team, Machine Gun Sammy giving “how to ban” instructions, Kavanaugh looking the Bruen gift horse in the mouth, and Roberts being Roberts, you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t view the bump stock opinion as proof our troubles are over.
I just hope Clarence Thomas doesn’t drop.
Sen. Murphy says Supreme Court is readying to ‘fundamentally rewrite’ Second Amendment after bump stock ruling [More]
Says the rewriter. Says the side of serial infringers who, with a practiced straight face, contradict themselves every time they declare “We can respect the Second Amendment but…”
Will US Supreme Court Hear ‘Spirit of Aloha’ Gun Rights Case? [More]
Or will barbaric primitives continue to impose Kapu traditions?
Very important to understand that strategic decision by Donald Trump and the NRA to basically sign off if you will on doing a bump stock ban through executive order, I didn’t like it, I was not happy about it, but I understood the strategy sometimes one has to lose battles to win the war, that is how the real world works… [Watch]
Really? A plan comes together? That’s what you’re going with?
So, I guess, “Take the guns first, due process later” was another genius move they just couldn’t tell us about?
And envisioning Inspector Clouseau pretending his screwup was intentional to save face is just me not being smart enough to understand what the grownups are doing?
[Via Jess]
57 F. 4th 447, affirmed. [More]
Bump Stocks Now Legal Again As Supreme Court Strikes Down Gun Device Ban
Looks like ATF will have to surrender my bump stock back to me when I come to confiscate it from them.
UPDATE
Herschel points out a concern with “Alito’s “Machinegun Sammy’s” response.
I agree. Congress has no Constitutional authority to “act,” either.
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously backed the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment ruling that could make it harder for state regulators to pressure advocacy groups. The decision means the NRA may continue to pursue its lawsuit against a New York official who urged banks and insurance companies to cut ties with the gun rights group… [More]
Six petitions have been filed seeking review of that determination: Harrel v. Raoul, Herrera v. Raoul, Barnett v. Raoul, National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, Illinois, Langley v. Kelly, and Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. Raoul. Given the ubiquity of AR- and AK-type firearms, this case will likely be a blockbuster if granted. [More]
And what will it likely be if it’s not?
[Via Jess]
The latest high court action came in a 6-3 decision in Culley v. Marshall, where the justices held that there are “no due process protections for citizens in asset forfeiture proceedings to have an early court hearing to contest the government keeping possession of their seized property while they await trial.” [More]
“6-3″…? The Democrats voted right and the “pro-gun” judges voted wrong…?
What’s a government with an unlimited war chest stripping innocent-until-proven-guilty defendants of resources to defend themselves have to do with guns?
Ask the Reese family (and you’ll need to use the Wayback Machine to access my old Gun Rights Examiner links.)
I wonder if the majority got new Leathermans…
SCOTUS urged to hear Mexico’s lawsuit blaming US gun makers for cartel violence – GOP AGs say ‘anti-gun activists’ trying to blame US gun manufacturers for Mexico’s bad policy choices [More]
Once more I see my guy, Dave Yost, AWOL…
And once more I’ll ask him why.
[Via Jess]
Nearly 50 House Democrats called on Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases Tuesday, questioning whether the jurist could be impartial after an upside-down flag flew at his home in the weeks after the U.S. Capitol attack in 2021. [More]
And they want him to recuse himself on guns, on immigration, on abortion…
And Clarence Thomas, too…
Time was, checks and balances/separation of powers was standard fifth grade civics fare.
All those tyrants understand is power. Constitutional legitimacy has nothing to do with it.
Besides, if the Republicans don’t blow November, we’re gonna need fair-minded judges on the J6 trials.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined three Marylanders’ request to review the constitutionality of a state law banning AR-15-style rifles that was passed in the wake of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. [More]
Why? Wasn’t it infringy enough?
Two Second Amendment Foundation cases challenging bans on so-called “assault weapons” and magazine capacity—one in Illinois and the other in Maryland—are among five cases distributed Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court for conference May 16. [More]
2A defenders are doing a full court press on behalf of all of us.
SCOTUS to Clarify the Contours of Second Amendment Rights in U.S. v. Rahimi [More]
Is there a problem with “shall not be infringed”?
Something tells me this won’t be a factor…
JUSTICE SCALIA TEACHES: HOW TO SAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WITHOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT [Watch]
It gets a bit too far into the weeds for my poor thinking, which can’t overlook the concessions he made trying to save it WITH the 2nd Amendment.
[Via Jess]
