SAF PETITIONS SCOTUS FOR CERTIORARI IN DELAWARE GUN, MAG BAN CHALLENGES [More]
Basically, the prohibitionist position is that free people can’t be trusted with Pez dispenser technology.
Magazine Drive
Tag: Supreme Court
We’re the Only Ones Homewrecking Enough
Just Like the Framers Intended
For places that are newer, Defendants must point to regulations that are analogous to the regulations cited by the Supreme Court, taking into account that it is illogical to expect a government to regulate a place before it existed in its modern form. [More]
So, any building, parcel, street, city, territory, or state developed after ratification…?
What other articles in the Bill of Rights does this apply to?
Rapping SAPA
BOMBSHELL Interview: AG Of MO Joins The Channel & VOWS To Take SAPA To SCOTUS IMMEDIATELY! In today’s episode, we have a very special guest, the Attorney General of Missouri Andrew Bailey. He’s going to SCOTUS and no one is going to stop him [Watch]
Did they agree to take the case?
Since 2A is supposed to ultimately be about freedom, I can’t quite make the guy out to be a hero until I see some credible answers on keeping innocent prisoners incarcerated.
[Via Jess]
Pathway to Tyranny
The future of the Supreme Court is on the line in November’s elections. If Vice President Kamala Harris and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer are victorious in November, the independent Supreme Court that the Framers bequeathed to us will be a thing of the past. That’s one of the big reasons why Harris must be defeated in her campaign for president, and why Schumer must be demoted to Minority Leader. [More]
I forgot to mention: The Guardians beat Pittsburgh!
[Via bondmen]
The Games People Play
The Court should not grant certiorari to review at this stage but should permit the ordinary percolation process to continue and reserve its intervention for the point at which, if it comes at all, the courts of appeals are actually divided.” [More]
I understand what they’re doing and why.
It’s not them, it’s a fraudulent power-usurping system that allowed the first infringement to take place and has done nothing since but entrench and assail.
It All Depends
Do the Right Thing
27 states urge Supreme Court to reject Biden administration’s rule defining gun parts [More]
The court’s ability and inclination to produce favorable future rulings depends on what happens in November, for those of you who believe sitting on your hands because it doesn’t make any difference is defensible.
[Via Jess]
BATFE Slapping
Today, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a merits-stage Respondents’ brief with the United States Supreme Court in FPC’s Garland v. VanDerStok lawsuit challenging ATF’s “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms” Rule. FPC’s brief, available at FPCLaw.org, explains why the government’s Rule cannot survive scrutiny and must fail. [More]
Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner breaks it down for us.
[Via Jess]
Race to the Top
A challenge against Maryland’s gun ban is likely to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court before gun ban challenges from other states. [More]
Sadly, all the high court has to do to let it stand is nothing.
If they do hear it, it will be a game-changer, but it will still leave the more fundamentally destructive NFA and Hughes Amendment in play.
Then there are the questions of when will they hear such a case, and who will be in power and appointing justices?
[Via Jess]
A Temporary Disparity
Why does the Court lower the bar for the First Amendment, but not the Second Amendment? Why does free speech require “breathing room” but self-defense does not? [More]
They’re working on “fixing” that.
[Via Michael G]
Hit ’em Where It Hurts
Mexico Asks US Supreme Court To Allow Its $10 Billion Lawsuit Against US Gun Makers [More]
And the only people urging us to boycott Mexico are environmentalcases at the Center for Biological Diversity…?
And I don’t suppose a countersuit’s an option…?
[Via bondmen]
Thomas Wants to Address What ‘Arms’ are Protected by Second Amendment
The question before the courts should be simple: How did people at the time of the Constitution’s ratification define “arms”? [More]
“Weapons of war” are precisely what the Founders had in mind.
A Foolish Consistency
The Supreme Court refused to hear any Second Amendment cases as of now. So, why did they do this and what is the future of 2A Supreme Court litigations. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains. [Watch]
Paint it how you like, but when policies and procedures override the reasons articulated in the Preamble for having them, something’s broken. You know it’s “shall not be infringed,” they know it’s “shall not be infringed,” and the traitors know it’s “shall not be infringed.”
We weren’t made to be ruled by hobgoblins, robed or otherwise.
[Via Jess]
What It Means to Me
They Say That Like It’s a BAD Thing…
Without Deference
Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled. [More]
[Via Antigone]
Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth
The justices in a 6-3 vote on nonideological lines handed a win to defendant Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants — including former President Donald Trump — who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding over the effort to prevent Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory. [More]
That’s great news. But once again, Amy Coney Barrett casts doubt on her appointment.
She gave us Bruen, but as the saying goes, “What has she done for us lately?”
While Barrett’s confirmation should give gun owners a degree of hope and should certainly be viewed as more positive than a Biden nominee being placed on the High Court, we’ll need to wait and see if the gun groups or the gun-grabbers are right in their assessments. Republican appointments have disappointed in the past. Warren Burger and David Souter coming to mind.
Back to J6, that means hundreds have been falsely accused, arrested, prosecuted,and imprisoned. Who will pay?
Democrats are still out there smearing them as insurrectionists and traitors.
Siding with the Enemy
The Court ruled 6-3 that the plaintiffs, a group of conservative states and social media users, had no standing to sue the federal government over its attempts to influence the censorship policies of social media giants. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the opinion of the court, but Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented. [More]
Is it unfair to wonder whose got what on turncoat “conservatives”?
While the Iron is Hot
Major breaking news: Attorney General Merrick Garland and his solicitor general are trying to strike while the iron is hot, so they think. They have just requested of the United States Supreme Court that the court take a series … of cases involving Second Amendment challenges … basically trying to take advantage of what they think is a huge win for them in the Rahimi case… [Watch]
It was a huge win. It showed just how malleable all the “good” Bruen judges, with the exception of Clarence Thomas, are.
And like all jackals, emboldened when they sense weakness, they move the circle in to attack.
[Via Jess]
