Notes from the Resistance
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]
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…”
