Notes from the Resistance
House strikes blow against federal regulations, votes to overturn controversial Supreme Court ruling – The Supreme Court might strike down the precedent itself later this year [More]
That’s what it will take because you know the Senate is never going to stand for this.
Be nice when they do so I can get my damn bump stock back.
“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]
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]
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]
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]
Progressive Game Plan: Neutralize The Supreme Court & Disarm The Citizenry [More]
Yep, a plan comes together.
[Via Jess]
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.”
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]
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…
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]
…and Federalism and originalism as checks on totalitarianism are “anarchy.” [More]
Only a monopoly of violence can bring order!
Anybody else getting an Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS vibe off of Kim…?
[Via Remarks]
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]
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)
Delaware lowers passing score on bar exam in push for racial diversity: ‘Not supposed to be a barrier’ – Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. said changes reflect ‘modernization’ of admission process [More]
Hey, if Biden can do it for the Supreme Court, what’s the big deal with his home state doing it for the locals?
[Via Michael G]
That Warren Burger Quote Gun Grabbers Love Is Ahistorical — Not To Mention Sort Of Fake [More]
And he’s not the only “conservative” phony.
[Via Michael G]
Randi Weingarten gives emotional speech outside Supreme Court [More]
All that furious shouting combined with extreme hand gestures reminds me of someone else’s speech style that was persuasive to angry masses.
Kavanuagh Rape Accuser Confesses She Lied, Was Never Raped, Never Even Met The Man [More]
So: Who’s in jail?
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will consider for a second time whether to hear Raland J. Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, a case that alleges Congress had a duty to investigate claims of fraud and impropriety in the 2020 national election, and that member votes against doing so amounted to treason. [More]
And all they have to do to let things stand is…nothing.
[Via Michael G]
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul appealed to the 5th District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon Monday to overturn a temporary restraining order against the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which bans dozens of handguns and rifles, .50-caliber guns, certain attachments and accessories, and limits cartridges to 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for pistols. [More]
On the plus side, it’ll end up heading to the Bruen court…
[Via Jess]
From David T. Hardy, via an email discussion concerning SCOTUS declining to hear a challenge to New York concealed carry laws:
It just declined to grant a stay pending appeal (or, to be more exact, refused to overrule the 2nd Circuit’s decision to grant a stay), which is not really refusing to hear the case. The two dissenters suggested they were ready to jump down the 2nd Circuit’s throat if it didn’t do the right thing.
The 2nd Circuit is going to look at this case very carefully….
Napoleon, when someone was going into detail on a particular general’s military virtues and why he deserved promotion, cut him off with “Enough, tell me one thing — is he lucky?” Meaning, I think, does he get results that no one expected. The attorney in the case, Steven Stamboulieh, appears to be very, very, lucky. He is someone to watch, now and ten years from now when we in the old guard are gone.
Supreme Court rejects New York gun retailers’ bid to block new concealed carry laws [More]
How the same court that ruled on Bruen could refuse to block this has Yul baffled.
I’m not sure it’s the “major blow” this is being presented as, and it could be there’s some 3D chess going on by Thomas and some others to allow lower court challenges to continue, but Lord knows I’ve been dead wrong in trying to figure out what it takes to acknowledge “shall not be infringed” before.
Maybe somebody’s got pictures?
Supreme Court’s Alito and Thomas warn new gun control law raises ‘serious’ 2A questions [More]
Wake me when they warn about serious consequences for courts that thumb their noses.
[Via Dan Gifford]
