Notes from the Resistance
Tester demands they be disarmed when they go to the post office not even allowed to keep their lawfully owned guns securely stored in their vehicles … If it were up to Tester, we would not have the Bruen decision… [More]
Republican contenders Johnson and Sheehy can use both of these issues against him.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson spells out the legal chaos that will arise when the right-wing Roberts Court overturns the 1984 Chevron doctrine, which for 40 years has allowed federal agencies to make reasonable interpretations of undefined terms in federal statutes. [More]
Says the apparatchik who can’t define “woman”…
Members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined on Wednesday to overturn or limit a key precedent that has empowered executive agencies and frustrated business groups hostile to government regulation. Judging from questions in two hard-fought arguments that lasted a total of more than three and a half hours, the fate of a foundational doctrine of administrative law called Chevron deference appeared to be in peril. [More]
This fish story is the one to watch…
Any bets on how soon I get my bump stock back…?
In defining what constitutes a public health emergency, the governor asserts that both gun violence and drug abuse “comfortably fall within” the category because of extremely dangerous conditions posed by weapons and toxic chemical agents posing an imminent threat to many New Mexico residents. The temporary orders don’t violate constitutional rights, she said. [More]
That’s because she’s an unqualified liar with a subversive agenda.
I’d think if Democrats are going to treat “gun dependency” like they do addiction, they’d have dispensaries where you could pick up free ones so you wouldn’t have to share…
[Via Jess]
Bloomberg Law’s take on the Court’s consideration of the case is, unsurprisingly, driven by the fact that it might upend some of the charges leveled at Trump. And it is hard to criticize that focus because, well…Trump. He is the big dog, and if Fischer wins his appeal some of the cases against Trump either get complicated or even go away. [More]
Which helps explain some of the Marxist desperation…
Let’s just hope we’re not talking Kraken here…
[Via Michael G]
Ketanji Brown Jackson slapped with ethics complaint over husband’s income [More]
Maybe that’s what’s behind the Democrats’ Clarence Thomas witch hunt.
Have you thanked these three douchebags?
[Via Jess]
Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot [More]
These monsters think they can deny millions, most of whom are armed. And anyone who thinks this is about Trump is deliberately missing the point.
I’m breaking my own “easy on the cussing and for the most part avoid it” rule: These motherfucking treasonous Democrat apparatchiks really are bent on starting a civil war. Any president elected under these restrictions will not be legitimate and any orders will be unlawful and morally resistable against enforcers.
You’d better fix this, SCOTUS.
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.
The US Department of Justice made a major concession involving whether licensing officials working for executive agencies may exercise “discretion” over CCW permits. [Watch]
That is big.
And using that rationale, I’d argue they can’t exercise executive “discretion” in “rulemaking” not backed by legislation, either.
Or in creating new classifications of “prohibited persons.”
[Via Jess]
