Tag: Supreme Court

Judicial Skulduggery

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]

An Unlawful Law and a Criminal Criminal Statute

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]

To Tell the Truth

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]

A Presumption of Guilt

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?

SCOTUS ‘Ghost Gun’ Vote Underscores Importance of Vetting Judicial Candidates on Second Amendment

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.

The Bidding of His Masters

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]

The ‘Conservative’ Court

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]

Rotten to the Core

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]

How About ‘No’?

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]

How Do You Get From Here to There?

“We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances. Its reference to arms does not apply only to those arms in existence in the 18th Century… just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Thus even though the Second Amendment’s definition of arms is fixed according to the historical understanding that that general definition covers modern…modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. [Watch]

Exactly right. What I’m having trouble connecting the dots on is this:

What is that burden that the government has to bear? The government has to come forth to prove that the arms that they want to ban are not in common use.

Ignoring the first 13 words and focusing exclusively on self-defense leaves the door open to saying post-’86 machine guns are not in common use. It also means that new technological developments that the government reserves for itself will never be.

That is what I’d like to see Mr. Smith elaborate on. I believe he’s one of the few who could.

As an aside, I think the first Republican presidential candidate who promised to nominate him if any Supreme Court openings happen would gain a huge advantage with gun owners.

[Via Stephen I]

Connect the Dots

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court in Sackett v EPA issued a major ruling cutting back on the authority of the EPA and by extension all federal executive branch agencies such as the ATF to enact laws via regulations. The Sackett opinion contains powerful language that can likely be used against the ATF in various contexts including in the ongoing legal fights over the bump stock ban and the pistol brace rules. Mark Smith breaks it down. [Watch]

If you think about it, this is also a powerful argument against the phony “single issue” deflection.

It’s all related. That’s because it’s not about guns, it’s about freedom.

[Via Jess]

Not Now

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a request to block state and local laws barring the sale of assault-style weapons in Illinois while a group of challenges to those laws continues in the lower courts. There were no dissents publicly recorded from the unsigned order, nor did the justices provide any explanation for their decision. [More]

I’m going to resist reading more into this for now.

[Via Jess]

Oh, It’s the Safety Dance

In particular, the court explained, “the text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are unprotected.” Id. at 18. “Because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons and high-capacity magazines are particularly dangerous weapon accessories, their regulation accords with history and tradition.” [More]

So it was the Founders’ contention that only “safe” arms were “necessary to the security of a free State”?

[Via Jess]

A Plan Comes Together

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said. [More]

Don’t be surprised to see charges from a functionary of the party of citizen disarmament. They need him out before the court takes up “assault weapons.”

Verified by MonsterInsights