Tag: Supreme Court

And They Say There Are No Stupid Questions

Whether Illinois’ flat ban on ordinary citizens carrying firearms on public transportation violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. [More]

That this is even in question shows how far the Republic has degraded from the clear intent understood by the founders as a condition for ratification.

That the big worry now is if SCOTUS will even hear it, and if so, how it will rule, tells us more.

[Via Jess]

Shall Not Be Infringed UNLESS…?

Viramontes’s criticism of Bevis on this point carries little weight, given Heller’s holding that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes[.]” Id. at 625. Heller did not hold, as Viramontes seems to imply, that military-style weapons are protected “arms” because military action by civilians is lawful. Instead, Heller characterized self-defense as the “core lawful purpose” of firearm use. 554 U.S. at 630. [More]

I beg to differ. And have warned that ignoring the militia aspect would be used against us.

Funny, how a common prohibitionist argument is that 2A advocates ignore the first 13 words, and here it is they’re doing just that in their legal argument.

In any case, the amendment says “arms.” And as for the contention that its ban “finds support in this nation’s history and tradition,” tell that to Tench Coxe.

F-n’ lying Illinois Democrats…

[Via Jess]

More 2A ‘Task Force’ Treason

But as shown, the Government’s efforts to defend the panel’s decision are all unpersuasive. And the starkness of the Seventh Circuit’s departure from this Court’s precedent— combined with the peculiar and anomalous nature of the restrictions on short-barreled rifles at issue—in fact make this case a particularly suitable vehicle for resolving one or more of these fundamental methodological questions. [More]

So, why is “pro-gun” Pam Bondi’s Justice Department arguing otherwise?

Not that I expect any of the gun groups to resolve these things at a round table that doesn’t exist and they won’t ask for…

[Via Jess]

Sounds Like a Predetermined Outcome to Me

Justices agree to review federal law banning drug users from possessing guns [More]

I see the Trump/Bondi DOJ is selectively defending infringements again.

Could there be a less sympathetic defendant than “a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, who was indicted in 2023 on a single count of violating the guns-and-drugs law after the FBI found a 9mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine at his family home” ?

Am I wrong to suspect a way to erode the text, history, and tradition standard and guarantee bad precedent with a case centered on what would have been pretty much an anachronism at the time of the founding?

[Via Jess]

Wolford at the Door

On Friday we celebrated DOJ Civil Rights filing an amicus brief with SCOTUS on Wolford v Lopez, the case out of Hawaii where there is a circuit split on “whether private property no carry default violates the Second Amendment.”

That’s the case where Alan Beck is one of the attorneys for petitioners.

Stephen Stamboulieh, who has worked with Alan on numerous efforts, as well as represented me, shares his thoughts:

The Vampire Hunter

Not having to be invited in IS a big deal.

[Via WiscoDave]

Connect the Dots

The Supreme Court ruled the Trump Administration can continue operations in Los Angeles to remove dangerous criminal illegal aliens from the streets [More]

So… elections have judicial consequences…?

And this actually does affect the “single issue”?

Go ahead, Democrats. Rebel not just against Trump but the Supreme Court.

[Via Jess]

If You Don’t Ask, You Don’t Get

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in Viramontes v. Cook County, SAF’s challenge to the Cook County, Ill., ban on so-called “assault weapons.” [More]

Here’s the brief.

I was happy to see that it did not neglect to include:

The text of the Second Amendment itself proclaims that one of its purposes was to preserve the “militia” and, to state the obvious, the militia did not exist solely to promote individual self-defense but rather was “useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections,” “render[ed] large standing armies unnecessary,” and enabled the people to be “better able to resist tyranny”. Indeed, to the extent there is a historical tradition with respect to “military” arms, it is to afford them especially strong protection.

Tangentially Related Development

The U.S. Supreme Court has distributed a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) case, Madison Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, for conference to be held on Monday, Sept. 29. [More]

Good First Steps

Trump’s Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to strike down state laws prohibiting handguns from being brought onto someone else’s property without that person’s consent. The department also declined to ask the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s ruling that federal age limits on handgun purchases are unconstitutional. [More]

OK, but not exactly the HUGE NEWS some are touting.

Next…?

[Via Jess]

Kick the Can

SCOTUS Fails Americans Again, Kicking Gun Rights Further Down the Road [More]

Nothing like emboldening gun-grabbers and eroding respect for law…

And speaking of Firearms News articles, the June 2025 issue (pictured above) with three of my articles (“Supreme Court Avoids New York Second Amendment Infringements” (p. 10), “A Tale of Two Revolutions” (p.12), and “ATF and DOJ Continue Abuses While Being Bipolar on Guns” (p. 14), is now on display at diverse and inclusive newsstands throughout the Republic. (Or you could save money over single issue prices and subscribe.)

The Long and Short of It

NRA-ILA Petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to NFA Restrictions on Short-Barreled Rifles [More]

Pretty long on “common use” popularity and pretty short on core purpose except to address militia controls, as opposed to militia necessity.

Now all SCOTUS has to do is… nothing.

[Via Jess]