That ruling is what makes ‘case law’. And the rest of the article shows how  prosecutors who wants to send someone to prison  for whatever reasons, will twist law for their own purposes.


Colorado Supreme Court reaffirms self-defense right to ‘stand your ground’

DENVER–In a June 29 ruling the Colorado Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a woman who stabbed a man in the neck during an altercation and ordered a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, as well as reaffirmed Colorado’s “no duty to retreat” rule, which, as Justice Hood wrote in the state high court’s decision, “permits non-aggressors to stand their ground when acting in self-defense.”

Sheila Monroe was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault and five habitual criminal charges and sentenced to 98 years in prison after she was tried for stabbing James Faulkenberry on the #16 Colfax Avenue RTD bus in Denver in October, 2011.

Monroe claimed self defense in the stabbing, saying after a heated argument with Faulkenberry he suddenly withdrew something from inside his coat that Monroe thought was a weapon. She immediately stabbed him in the neck with a pocket knife. Faulkenberry survived the attack.

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court sides with Catholic schools in employment suit

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is siding with two Catholic schools in a ruling that underscores that certain employees of religious schools, hospitals and social service centers can’t sue for employment discrimination.

The high court’s ruling on Wednesday was 7-2.

The justices had previously said in a unanimous 2012 decision that the Constitution prevents ministers from suing their churches for employment discrimination. The justices said then that the Constitution’s required separation between church and state means that religious groups must be allowed to hire and fire individuals who serve as teachers or messengers of their faith, without court interference. But the court didn’t rigidly define who counts as a minister.

Tuesday’s case was one of 10 the high court heard arguments in by telephone in May because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Facing Court Loss, Defendants in California Gun Show Lawsuit Settle With SAF

BELLEVUE, WA – Faced with certain loss in court, defendants in a California lawsuit challenging a gun show moratorium at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego County have settled with the plaintiffs, including the Second Amendment Foundation and California Rifle & Pistol Association.

In addition, plaintiffs included B&L Productions, Inc., Crossroads of the West, South Bay Rod and Gun Club, Maximum Wholesale/Ammo Brothers and five private citizens.

“This is a victory for the First Amendment as well as the Second,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re delighted the 22nd District Agricultural Association and fairgrounds board decided against prolonging a legal action.”

SAF was represented by attorney Don Kilmer, who observed, “The gun culture belongs on Main Street and that is what this lawsuit was all about.”

A preliminary injunction against the fairgrounds moratorium was issued in June 2019.

“Gun shows are considered a First Amendment activity as well as a Second Amendment event,” Gottlieb stated. “Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 outbreak, we haven’t been able to see a show held at the fairgrounds, but we’re looking forward to hearing from the gun show promotor that a date is set for another gathering sometime this year, hopefully.”

Under the agreement, the defendant will pay SAF’s attorney fees and costs, Kilmer said.

You can buy it, sell it. make it for your own use, but as you see from this man’s example, loading ammo for sale without a license from the bureaucraps at  ATF is not the smart thing to do.
My first squad leader’s axiom comes to mind:
“The best teacher is experience, and the best experience is someone else’s as it’s usually less expensive and painful.”


Man Who Supplied Ammo to Las Vegas Shooter Gets 13 Months

The Mesa, Arizona, man who supplied ammunition to the October 1, 2017, Las Vegas shooter was sentenced Tuesday to 13 months.

The Associated Press reports that 57-year-old Douglas Haig was sentenced for “manufacturing ammunition without a license.”

Continue reading “”

The case is Seila Law v. CFPB, 19-7.


Supreme Court Backs President’s Power to Fire CFPB Director

A divided U.S. Supreme Court said the president has broad power to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruling that Congress went too far in trying to insulate the agency from political pressure.

The justices on Monday backed the Trump administration in the separation-of-powers clash, striking down a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that protected the director from being fired. The court stopped short of abolishing the agency altogether. Continue reading “”

And whatta you know; they’re all demoncraps


AG’s in 16 States Embrace Background Checks On Ammo Purchases

California’s law requiring background checks on every purchase of ammunition has been a gigantic clusterfark since it took effect back in 2018. Since then, tens of thousands of Californians have been denied the ability to purchase ammunition because of problems with the government’s database of gun owners, while others have had to wait through lengthy delays to simply purchase a box or two of ammunition.

Back in April, a federal judge issued a stay on enforcement of the law, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quickly overruled the lower court, and the law remains in effect for the time being, though the case (known as Rhode vs. Becerra) is still actively being litigated. On Monday, a coalition of 16 attorneys general, all of them Democrats, filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the California law is constitutional and urged the court to permanently vacate the district court’s injunction.

If you live in Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, or Washington you should know that your attorney general has given the green light for your state legislature to implement California-style ammunition control if they want.

Continue reading “”

Oklahoma Supreme Court rejects proposed state question to overturn ‘permitless carry’

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The Oklahoma Supreme Court has rejected a proposed state question to overturn “permitless carry” but says a marijuana legalization proposal may proceed.

The high court issued separate rulings on the two state questions Tuesday.

It determined a brief explanation, or gist, of State Question 809 on so-called “permitless carry” didn’t accurately explain the proposal and was misleading.

Supporters had hoped to overturn the law that allows most adults to carry a firearm without training or a background check.

Federal appeals court orders dismissal of Michael Flynn case, likely ending prosecution of ex-Trump adviser

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court has ordered the dismissal of the case against Michael Flynn, a decision that likely ends the long and fraught prosecution of President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser.

In a 2-1 ruling Wednesday, the appeals court ordered U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who has been presiding over the prosecution of Flynn, to dismiss the case. The opinion, authored by D.C. Circuit Court Judge Neomi Rao, called Sullivan’s actions – appointing a third party to challenge the government’s bid to drop its prosecution of Flynn – “unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty” and on the Justice Department’s prosecutorial powers.

Continue reading “”

Gun Rights Activists Sue to Block Virginia’s Universal Background Checks Law

Gun rights activists have filed another lawsuit challenging Virginia’s soon-to-become-law gun control measures, this time challenging expanded background checks.

The lawsuit from the Virginia Citizens Defense League and five other plaintiffs was filed late Monday afternoon in Lynchburg Circuit Court. It argues that the law, which is set to take effect July 1, violates residents’ constitutional rights by making them subject to background checks.

Continue reading “”

Have Democrats Finally Intimidated Conservatives On The Supreme Court?

REP. BOB BARR

As the Supreme Court nears the end of its 2019-2020 term, it is becoming increasingly questionable whether the “conservative majority” that Trump appointees Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were supposed to have ushered in actually exists.

Ever since his legally convoluted majority opinion upholding Obamacare against serious constitutional challenge eight years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts has provided conservatives plenty of reason to suspect he is not the “conservative” jurist in whom many had pinned hopes. However, a handful of decisions by the Court in the past two months have raised new red flags that the problems with the “conservative” majority run deeper than a single jurist.

An additional concern is that recent public threats by leading Democrat senators directed against the Court’s Republican-appointed justices might well have intimidated some of them into tempering their views.

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court’s Inaction Frustrates Second Amendment Supporters, Emboldens Anti-gun Activists

Gun owners are by now used to being disappointed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to uphold their rights or even to defend its own Second Amendment precedents. But the court’s neglect reached a new low last Monday, with its sweeping decision to deny review of the many Second Amendment cases pending on its docket.

At issue were 10 petitions that offered the court opportunities to clarify the most important and contentious issues in the modern Second Amendment landscape, controversies that in some cases have led to radically different approaches by public officials and the lower courts.

The high court, however, passed on all of them. The Supreme Court’s most recent “punt” prompted outrage not only from pro-gun activists, but by members of the court itself who remain committed to upholding Second Amendment rights.

Continue reading “”

Time for Universal Background Checks for Abortions, Voting & Car Buying

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- We’ve all heard, and probably used or argued against various analogies about regulating guns like we regulate cars, or comparing the ID requirements for buying a gun to the ID requirements for voting. Still, maybe it’s time to take these analogies out of the hypothetical realm of the debate platform, and into the real world of legislation.

What if pro-rights politicians were to craft legislation that echoed gun control laws, but was applied to such things as voting, purchasing an automobile, publishing a newspaper, and obtaining abortion services?

Continue reading “”

THE ROBERTS’ COURT WILL NOT DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT, EVER!

These last few weeks, the Arbalest Quarrel has been working steadfastly on analyzing the NYC gun transport case. We felt a detailed analysis necessary as we had serious doubts the Court would grant cert in any of the ten pending Second Amendment cases.

The NYC case provided our best chance for a serious Court review of 2A, ten years after the McDonald decision, clarifying and cementing the import and purport of Heller and McDonald in Supreme Court case law. The opportunity provided the Court is gone. And, that lost opportunity is rightfully placed at the feet of the Chief Justice, himself.

Continue reading “”

Why Did the Roberts Court Punt on Ten Second Amendment Cases?
The most likely explanation is that neither of the Court’s ideological factions was confident enough of Roberts’s support to risk granting certiorari.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review all ten of the Second Amendment cases it had pending on its docket. Though the cases presented different fact patterns and procedural postures, the Court simply refused to weigh in on any of them. There seems to be one likely reason: Chief Justice Roberts does not want the Court to take a stance on the Second Amendment. We know because it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case but five to reach a decision once a case is heard — and there are four justices on record as being in favor of the Court’s reviewing Second Amendment issues.

Continue reading “”

A Court in Denial

Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Supreme Court in October 2018, taking over the seat from retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. In January 2019, after nearly a decade of declining to hear a Second Amendment case, the Court granted review in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. Many observers—myself certainly included—thought the new Court would have an increased interest in resolving questions about the substance and methodology of the right that Heller announced in 2008. But, after NYSRPA was dismissed as moot earlier this year, the Supreme Court this week denied review in the 10 cases it had been holding for NYSRPA. It’s not totally clear why. But one thing is clear: Justice Thomas thinks the Court abdicated its responsibility in doing so. In this post, I unpack his dissent from the denial of certiorari in one of these cases and question what’s next for the Second Amendment at the Supreme Court.

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS Rejection of 2A Cases Moves Up Likelihood of a Forced Choice for Gun Owners
By ignoring their oaths and usurping legislative powers, the Roberts court, with a few notable exceptions like Clarence Thomas, is guaranteeing gun owners will be forced to choose between obeying disarmament edicts or resisting them, with all that implies.

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Opponents of gun safety laws have again failed in their efforts to get the Supreme Court to adopt their extreme and dangerous approach,” Eric Tirschwell, managing director for Everytown Law crowed Monday, following the high court’s refusal to consider any of the 10 gun owner rights appeals petitioning to be heard. “In each of the cases, the lower courts correctly determined the Second Amendment is not a barrier to the reasonable, life-saving gun safety policies being challenged. The Supreme Court recognized there is no need to revisit these thorough rulings.”

They were pretty moderate cases, really, some challenging “special needs justifications” used to turn “may issue” into “don’t hold your breath,” bans on “commonly owned” standard capacity magazines and firearms, a challenge to interstate prohibitions on handguns sales, a challenge to a ban on handguns that do not employ microstamping and a challenge to the denial of rights to non-residents.

It’s not like anybody was asking them to admit the Founder’s mandate that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Or recognize the core purpose of the Second Amendment, and how state infringements undermine “the security of a free State” and of the Republic as a whole to the benefit of “enemies foreign and domestic.”

And that makes it fair for gun owners to ask what the hell is going on with the Supreme Court, and particularly with its top turncoat.

Continue reading “”

This confirms it, Roberts is the new squish.  Especially if it will be used against Trump. This was nothing more than an executive order by Obama and if a succeeding President can’t execute the powers of office, well………


Supreme Court Rules Trump Admin. Illegally Rescinded DACA

The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump Administration’s request to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program implemented by President Obama via executive order. The non-congressionally authorized administrative program created avenues to citizenship status for children if they had come to the United States with their parents before the age of 16, also known as DREAMers. In the conclusion of a highly-watched court battle over the controversial immigration program, the high court ruled in favor of keeping DACA in place by a vote of 5-4. Chief Justice John Roberts, a swing vote on the bench, sided with the liberal wing of the court:

Continue reading “”