Notes from the Resistance
“The more effective an arm is for the purposes for which a militia would require arms, the harder it should be to argue that its effectiveness somehow removes it from constitutional protection.” [More]
The Framers knew that and we know that. The tyranny-minded who want to ban them know that, too.
Supreme Court Sets Dec. 2 Arguments in AR-15 Ban Cases as DOJ Backs Gun Owners [More]
Their decisions, when they make it, will set the stage for what comes next.
As will your decision.
“Arms that bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… lie at the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, and a State may not prohibit them,” the brief concludes. “A prohibition imposed because those arms are useful for the common defense is contrary to the Second Amendment’s text, purpose, and history.” [More]
How could a Militia with inferior weapons to a standing army fulfill the intent of the Founders as “being necessary to the security of a free State”? This paves the way for more than AR-15s.
This is the brief I’ve been waiting for.
Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. [More]
You know the answer to that and I know the answer to that.
The question isn’t so much how many Supreme Court Justices know the answer to that as how many will not willingly subvert the Constitution and betray their countrymen?
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted two of the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) petitions for a writ certiorari in both Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, the organization’s challenges to the bans on so-called “assault weapons” in Illinois and Connecticut. [More]
Now git -r-done before power shifts.
ALSO
SUPREME COURT DENIES CERT IN 18-20 CARRY CASE, SAF WIN STANDS [More]
A SCOTUS pending cert petition in Viramontes v. Cook County needs the support of the Trump DOJ. [Watch]
Agreed.
How could they be told in a unified gun voter voice for greatest impact?
[Via Jess]
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in Viramontes v. Cook County, SAF’s challenge to the Cook County, Ill., ban on so-called “assault weapons.” [More]
I was happy to see that it did not neglect to include:
The text of the Second Amendment itself proclaims that one of its purposes was to preserve the “militia” and, to state the obvious, the militia did not exist solely to promote individual self-defense but rather was “useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections,” “render[ed] large standing armies unnecessary,” and enabled the people to be “better able to resist tyranny”. Indeed, to the extent there is a historical tradition with respect to “military” arms, it is to afford them especially strong protection.
Tangentially Related Development
The U.S. Supreme Court has distributed a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) case, Madison Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, for conference to be held on Monday, Sept. 29. [More]