Tag: Supreme Court

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.”

One Step Closer

In Washington state, House Bill 1240 was voted out of a Senate committee Tuesday, making it closer to becoming a reality. [More]

Here’s where you can track its progress.

After it passes and then wends its way through the challenges, all the Supreme Court will have to do to let it stand is… nothing.

If they do decide it’s time to resolve splits, a prayer for the continued good health of Justice Thomas wouldn’t hurt.

[Via Jess]

Point/Counterpoint

Dave, like so many others you are in error concerning Heller’s statement on the M-16. Scalia wrote that anyone who say’s M-16s and the like can be banned have de facto separated and nullified the prefatory clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” from the operative “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.” [More]

He’s leaving out the big “but” that immediately follows:

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

Previously qualified as:

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right…

I’ve posted this here because if I’m to get my other work done, I don’t have time to get embroiled in comments on AmmoLand, and besides, I get my say in the article and comments are for the readers.

And point of order…

Tyrants Gonna Tyrannize

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that struck down a federal law preventing people under domestic violence-related restraining orders from having guns. [More]

Because how better “to secure the Blessings of Liberty” than to deny rights to people who haven’t even been charged with anything, let alone convicted?

[Via bondmen]

A Good First Step

I have never given up hope that the collector’s item I got so I’d have standing will one day be surrendered back to me by ATF.

I wonder if SCOTUS will forever punt, and what the implications will be for pistol braces, forced reset triggers, and the like.

[Via WiscoDave]

The Finest Judges Money Can Buy

Yesterday we explored how Gov. Pritzker of Illinois played fast and loose with campaign finance rules to stack the state Supreme Court he is appealing his “assault weapon” ban legal setback to.

Mom-at-Arms has updated its report to prove a conflict of interest and to cite U.S. Supreme Court precedent:

Bishop On Air says “recuse.” (14:56)

Verified by MonsterInsights