Notes from the Resistance
But the Second Amendment isn’t an inkblot on the Constitution. It means something. Can that possibly not include a right to own the gun that claims to be America’s bestselling rifle? [More]
Is it an arm?
Then the right of the people to keep and bear it shall not be infringed.
Anyone who says otherwise is just a liar.
[Via Jess]
The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to Hawaii’s gun-licensing law, though three justices expressed a willingness to hear arguments over the issue later [More]
With “shall not be infringed” being the metric, that this is even an allowed to be an issue is one of the greatest frauds of our time.
Why SCOTUS Should Nuke Mexico’s Bogus Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers [More]
I think they will, and in a rational world it would be 7 -0. OOPS.
I also think those bringing such suits ought to pay. Bigly.
[Via Dan Gifford]
I. There is a long-running and intractable dispute in the lower courts over whether the Second Amendment allows the government to ban arms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens. II. Heller clearly teaches that arms in common use by law-abiding citizens cannot be banned. III. This case is an ideal vehicle to resolve this dispute. [More]
What’s to stop “common use” from allowing future developments to be banned?
[Via Jess]
United States Supreme Court denied Certiorari in Oakland Tactical versus Howell Township out of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. [Watch]
Which means SCOTUS will accept lower courts denying rights and thumbing their noses.
[Via Jess]
Should this Court decline to grant certiorari to consider the constitutionality of Maryland’s assault weapons ban where (1) that ban is consistent with this Court’s recognition in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that jurisdictions may ban “weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like”; (2) the Fourth Circuit faithfully applied New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), to conclude that Maryland’s law is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of “regulating those weapons that were invented for offensive purposes and were ultimately proven to pose exceptional dangers to innocent civilians,” Pet. App. 69a; and (3) there is no need to resolve a conflict among the lower courts? [More]
Translation: Tyrannical Maryland Democrats want the Supreme Court to turn a blind eye to the state’s willingness to imprison and/or kill citizens for defying unconstitutional diktats and claiming their birthrights.
[Via Jess]
Dems at War Over Secret SCOTUS Plot to Oust Sotomayor NOT AGAIN!Having spectacularly failed to get one woman elected to a top job, the Democratic Party is at odds over whether to push another woman out. [More]
This should be blockable if all Republicans stick together and militant Democrats let their feelings trump all.
Instead of taking on the next frontier of firearms regulations, the justices tossed a highly anticipated review of prohibitions on gun ownership for felons. [More]
The distancing from Bruen continues.
As noted before, the only thing the Supreme Court has to do to let infringements stand is… nothing.
[Via Antigone]
Anyone who tells you 18-to-20-year-olds are not fully enfranchised citizens entitled to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment is a liar and an enabler of tyranny. [More]
Sending back what should have been a no-brainer makes me wonder which SCOTUS members we’ve been told are 2A-friendly are getting ready to disappoint…
Vanderstok Case: SCOTUS Showdown Could Pave the Way for an ATF Ban on Semi-Autos [More]
What he said.
But what about Bruen?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sent a challenge to a Pennsylvania law barring people 18- to 20-years-old from carrying guns back to the lower courts for another look in light of last term’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, in which the justices attempted to provide guidance for courts reviewing Second Amendment challenges to restrictions on gun rights. [More]
I know the wheels of justice grind slowly and we have procedures for a reason, but come on...
[Via Jess]
This is not the first time Justice Barrett has departed from conservative views on the Second Amendment, values she represented herself as a staunch supporter of when she was nominated to the Supreme Court by then President Donald Trump. [More]
Except she didn’t, the gun groups did.
As with all SCOTUS confirmation hearings, they don’t ask the tough questions needed to elicit unequivocal answers.
As noted when cautioning against rubber stamping Gorsuch:
Typically in judicial confirmation hearings, nominees have been able to rely on an “out” giving them a pass on answering specific questions… Think of one job you’ve ever applied for where you’d have gotten it if you decided to play coy with the hiring managers. While it may be “inappropriate” for a judge to weigh in on a specific case before confirmation — for legitimate reasons, including not having studied and evaluated all the particulars, evidence and precedents against the “supreme Law of the Land,” — there’s no reason why general principles of understanding should be off-limits. Such hearings are supposed to be, among other things, high-level employment interviews, not pre-coronation ceremonies.
Gun owners may be paying the price for that… again.
The Supreme Court will decide whether to let criminals get guns without a background check [More]
A monopoly of violence apologist spits out a Big Lie and his followers swallow it up.
Just saying “Vox” should be enough.
They post all kinds of stupid sh!+.
Mexican prohibitionists ignoring the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to effect U.S. citizen disarmament are creatures that can only operate at the behest of cartel monsters who decapitate to terrorize. [More]
Who thinks the Framers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so that animals from a failed narco-terrorist state abetted by treasonous domestic subversives could render it toothless through lawfare?
David Codrea and Mark break down today’s SCOTUS “Ghost Gun” Scotus Oral Arguments [Listen]
What’s that recurring line from Star Wars?
And from Michael G:
Most Justices Seem Inclined To Uphold the ATF’s New Restrictions on Homemade Firearms [More]
Let’s hope our feelings are misplaced.
Based on results, ATF can’t, either.
She’s just wondering if “ghost guns” can also fire 800 rounds a second.
It’s OK to say “she,” isn’t it?
I’ll be joining host Mark Walters today at 4 Eastern to talk about what’s happening at SCOTUS with frames and receivers, and whatever else the conversation leads to.
Go to the Armed American Radio website to listen/watch live/find a station near you.
