Notes from the Resistance
The Supreme Court appears inclined to uphold a federal law banning guns from those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), in the first major test of the Second Amendment at the high court this term. [More]
Looks like some of the pundits assuring us Bruen was a magic bullet may have some ‘splainin’ to do…
The question now is which of the “justices” will show the beliefs no one dared ask them about during confirmations…
UPDATE
“He would not have been able to access that gun if we had these current laws in place,” Glenn said in an interview with The Associated Press that took place outside the Supreme Court. [More]
Why aren’t they telling us his Colorado TRO said he couldn’t get a gun?
And if “prohibited persons” can’t get guns, what’s all this about?
Not that reality and logic could ever compete with heartstring-tugging anecdotes…
[Via bondmen]
Supreme Court to Consider Allegations of Free Speech Violations by New York Official in NRA Case [More]
Who thought Democrats would be content to stop at the Second Amendment?
Even Vox grudgingly calls Vullo’s actions “incomprehensibly stupid” and says “NRA poised to win big.”
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument today in Reese v. BATFE involving whether young adults have a right to acquire firearms from federal gun dealers under the Second Amendment and, relatedly, whether 18 USC 922(b)(1) is constitutional. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner predicts that this gun control statute will be struck down and then the US DOJ will have to seek cert from the US Supreme Court. [Watch]
What was the understanding at the time of the Founding?
[Via Jess]
California’s assault weapons ban will remain in effect while a court considers whether the 30-year-old law is unconstitutional. [More]
That a court thinks there’s anything to consider is our first clue that the game is rigged.
I think we all know that the Ninth Circuit is going to side with citizen disarmament and it’ll take SCOTUS strapping ’em on to get a proper ruling–provided the Republicans don’t blow ’24 and the composition of the High Court changes while the clock is running.
Not that that would settle it…
[Via Jess]
Is Justice Amy Coney Barrett a TRAITOR to the 2nd Amendment? [Watch]
Again, this is more procedural than anything. That doesn’t mean justice isn’t being delayed and denied for some. I know as an SNBIer, I’m the last person to talk about nuance, but a High Court that can bypass appeals protocols here can bypass it elsewhere, and you’d better believe one with a different composition would exploit the hell out of that.
I’m surprised so many of Mark W. Smith’s followers in the video’s comments don’t seem to grok his points.
But yeah, I suspect if she had her druthers she wouldn’t be a purist. Neither would Roberts, or Kavanaugh, or… and don’t get me started on Scalia.
This is the hand we’re dealt. It’s up to us to play it smart.
[Via Jess]
Justices grant four new cases, including Chevron companion case [More]
So I might get my bump stock back?
[Via Jess]
Supreme Court tells Fifth Circuit to stop its defiance in ghost gun case … voiding the lower court orders and allowing the ATF regulations to go into effect pending further litigation. There were no noted dissents. [More]
Because we all know how big the Founders were on serial numbers and background checks…
I infer Nina Totenberg’s celebratory tone. That said, I’m not sure this isn’t more about following procedural steps than signaling a predisposition on an ultimate ruling.
And that said, citizens’ lives and livelihoods are jeopardized in the interim, and that hardly seems consistent with “secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty…”
Missouri asks Supreme Court to revive state law barring local police from helping to enforce federal gun laws [More]
About time that ball got rolling again …
[Via Jess]
So the Ninth Circuit has immediately declared they’re going to handle this case en banc without allowing a three judge panel to hear it first… [Watch]
The only real question: Will the Supreme Court let 9th Circuit Democrat apparatchiks get away with how they’ve signaled they intend to rule?
[Via Jess]
The lawyers for Zaki Rahimi have filed a powerful compelling argument against the criminal statute 18 USC 922 G8 which is the question presented whether or not that is constitutional under the Second Amendment and Rahimi’s attorneys have 0:19 actually made some additional creative arguments that we’re going to talk about… [Watch]
Mark W. Smith breaks it down for us.
[Via Jess]
Always take people at their word when they say what they want to disarm you. They want to kill you. They want to do bad things to you. So when you see before the United States Supreme Court in the United States v Rahimi case, statements that say we have no right to keep in bear arms, we have no right to possess firearms, we have no right to carry firearms, we have no right to use firearms to protect ourselves, you must take these words at face value. You must take them as truth that this is what the other side truly believes. We don’t have a right to self-defense we don’t have a right to guns. We have to be disarmed. Take them at their word. [Watch]
Conversely, don’t believe a word they say when they claim no one is talking about taking your guns.
[Via Jess]
Tangentially-Related:
…the reality is they’re all basically for more gun control what’s interesting is some of the briefs are actually embracing laws at the time of our founding that had racist and odious and bigoted foundations upon which they rest, and nevertheless some of the anti-gunners are embracing these… [Watch]
Disingenuously tryin g to separate the racist motivations from the act of disarmament simply means they want us all to be slaves.
[Via 1Gat]
The California Legislative Women’s Caucus called on the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to uphold domestic abuse restraining orders as it reviews a case that could permit domestic abusers the right to carry guns. [More]
If they’re proven, under full due process, to be too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, what are they doing out? And if they haven’t been, characterizing them all as “domestic abusers” in the very first sentence just shows there’s no lie or manipulation these people won’t use to disarm their countrymen, and makes fair the question “What the real motive of those behind this?”
What does it say about the Caucus’ commitment to DEI if every one of them is a “biological woman”? And why aren’t we hearing objections from the seven Republicans?
Today’s SCOTUS vote putting a hold on O’Connor’s block shows a Bruen Second Amendment majority does not necessarily reflect across-the-board solidarity on the separate issue of regulatory authority. And at least one of the votes is no surprise. [More]
Think of one job you’ve applied for where you’d have gotten it if you decided to play coy with the hiring managers.
Supreme Court temporarily reinstates ban on “ghost guns” [More]
I submitted an AmmoLand article centered on the Roberts/Barrett punt.
S. Ct. Will Review Whether Second Amendment Allows Disarming of People Subject to Civil Restraining Orders [More]
Just like the Founders used to do?
I gotta tell ya, Roberts and Kavanaugh and Barrett make me nervous.
[Via several of you]
Hey, SCOTUS — the right to life trumps the right to own a gun [More]
Don’t tell us, tell the abortion lobby.
Jonathan Lowy puts the lie to Brady and Everytown saying they respect the Second Amendment BUT…
I see he’s dusted off the same lies that got Fast and Furious started.
And guess where he gets the “human rights violation” talking points from.
[Via Jess]
Only the states and Congress can regulate elections, according to the Constitution. But not according to SCOTUS. [More]
Well, it’s not like they get asked relevant questions in the job interview…
“Usually, when Senators at confirmation hearings have asked Supreme Court nominees to comment on topical legal and constitutional issues, the nominees have firmly declined to do so.” The report explains. “In those situations, the nominees typically have taken the position that answers to questions which convey their personal views would conflict with their obligation to avoid appearing to make commitments, or provide signals, as to how they would vote as a Justice on future cases.”
[Via Michael G]
Supreme Court rules against man given 27 years in prison on gun charges [More]
If you’d told me I would side with Ketanji Brown Jackson against Clarence Thomas I’d have said you were nuts, albeit my reasons are different from hers.
[Via Jess]
At the center of this case is whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) properly interpreted the term “machinegun,” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), to include items known as non-mechanical bump stocks. [More]
And at the center of that is the question of where the hell any branch of government has the legitimate authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
[Via Jess]
SCOTUS to look at law barring accused domestic abusers from buying guns… As the Supreme Court justices race to finish up the current term, they will meet behind closed doors on Thursday to consider whether they should add a blockbuster Second Amendment case to the docket for next term. [More]
I’m not seeing where they did…
If you know differently, chime in.
[Via Jess]
