Illinois Supreme Court shoots down Cook County’s tax on firearms and ammo.

Thursday, Oct 21, 2021

Background

The Illinois Supreme Court this year will decide whether a Cook County tax on firearms and ammunition is unconstitutional on grounds taxes can’t be levied on items that allow people to exercise their “fundamental” rights.

The state’s high court last week heard arguments on a case where Cook County has twice been victorious in lower courts.

In 2012, the Cook County Board of Commissioners passed a $25 tax on firearms, followed a few years later by a per-cartridge tax on centerfire and rimfire ammunition.

The plaintiff in the case, “Guns Save Life”, a non-profit best known for erecting pro-gun signs on the side of highways, argues the intent of the tax was to make it more difficult for Illinoisans to purchase guns and violates their Second Amendment protections.

* The Illinois Supreme Court voted 6-0 to toss it out with Justice Anne Burke not taking part in the decision

Continue reading “”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules that the plaintiffs have standing to bring a preemption lawsuit against Harrisburg’s gun laws, even though they were not charged with violating them

FIREARM OWNERS AGAINST CRIME; KIM STOLFER; JOSHUA FIRST; AND
HOWARD BULLOCK v CITY OF HARRISBURG MAYOR ERIC PAPENFUSE; AND POLICE CHIEF THOMAS CARTER

“We affirm the Commonwealth Court because we conclude Appellees have standing to bring this declaratory judgment action before the City enforces the challenged ordinances against them.”

Parkland HS Gunman Pleading Guilty — ’17 Counts of First-Degree Murder

The alleged gunman behind the February 14, 2018, attack that killed 14 students and three staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School plans to plead guilty to “17 Counts of First-Degree Murder,” according to the Associated Press.

The AP reported that the 23-year-old suspect’s attorneys spoke on October 15, 2021, stating that the suspect will plead guilty on Wednesday.

The AP noted the admission of guilt “will come with no conditions and prosecutors still plan to seek the death penalty.”

The trial of the suspect has been delayed to this point due to the coronavirus and back and forth between prosecutors and defense attorney regarding evidence that was or was not admissible.

ABC News spoke with Manuel Oliver, father of 17-year-old Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting victim Joaquin Oliver, who said, “I think it’s time to put some — speed it up a little bit. Every day is a new day that we suffer.”

The shooting suspect allegedly used an AR-15 rifle in the attack and the Sun-Sentinel reported the suspect acquired the firearm via a background check.

In late 2018 the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission noted that the armed suspect had time on his side once he entered the school and was able to reload five times during this attack.

On November 21, 2018, Breitbart News observed that Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, head of the Commission investigating the shooting, made clear that armed teachers are a necessity when it comes to taking away the advantages the shooting suspect enjoyed.

The Associated Press quoted Gualtieri saying, “People need to keep an open mind to it as the reality is that if someone else in that school had a gun it could have saved kids’ lives.”

Marine Who Was Imprisoned for Speaking Against Afghanistan Incompetence Receives Surprise Sentence.

Some weeks ago, RedState reported on Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller’s imprisonment. After violating a gag order to speak against the rank incompetence that led to Joe Biden’s deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan, Scheller was thrown into the brig pending a hearing. Later, he was hit with multiple charges stemming from his conduct.

Now, the court-martial is over, and the results are somewhat surprising. Most thought the judge, Col. Glen Hines, would throw the book at him, as covering for the failures of military leadership has become a common occurrence. Yet, Scheller was given a fairly light sentence, which included a letter of reprimand and a forfeiture of $5,000 pay over the course of a single month. Further, the judge blasted command for the pre-trial detention and for leaking records to try to make the defendant look bad.

This, via the Marine Corps Times.

But the Corps’ proposed punishment for Scheller’s transgressions, for which everyone in the courtroom agreed he should be held accountable, paled in comparison to the mitigating factors, Hines explained.

In a trial where post-sentencing time in the brig was not even an option, the command’s decision to lock Scheller up while awaiting trial was “a very rare thing,” Hines said.

He also revealed that the Marine signed his plea agreement while in the brig.

Hines blasted apparent leaks of documents that included Scheller’s medical records, as attorney Parlatore claimed at trial, as “very disturbing,” “unfair” and “illegal.”

The ultimate punishment was far below what prosecutors had sought, which was forfeiture of $5,000 pay a month for six months. Scheller will now be honorably discharged and enter into civilian life, which was apparently his goal anyway, given his disgust with command.

Still, the prosecution acting on behalf of the Marine Corps stepped out of line here. There was no justification to lock Scheller up pre-trial. He was not a flight risk, and there was no reason to believe him to be dangerous, though the prosecution tried to paint him as such in their charging documents.

This was an attempted rail-roading that was headed off by a clear-minded judge who saw what was happening. That speaks to a deep rot still existent within the military.

In the end, Scheller paid the price that should have been paid, in my view. He knew when he put those videos out that there would be consequences for breaking the UCMJ, and at no point did he try to run from those consequences. But there was no reason to try to destroy his life and present him as a dangerous, deluded man — simply because he had the courage to speak against leadership that had failed him, the military, and the country.

Intruder who threatened to return to Calaveras County home killed during 2nd break-in

CALAVERAS COUNTY, Calif. —
An intruder was shot and killed by a homeowner after deputies said he broke into the same house twice in two days.

Just after midnight on Sunday, Calaveras County deputies responded to a home in the 7000 block of Gabor Street in Valley Springs for a report of a forced entry.

When deputies arrived, two men in the front of the home said that an unknown man, later identified as 28-year-old Lennin Elizalde, had kicked down the front door and began assaulting them. One of the men then told deputies that he had shot the intruder in self-defense.

Elizalde was declared dead at the scene, the sheriff’s office said.

During the investigation, deputies found that Elizalde had been arrested the day before for breaking into that same home.

Officials said that the people living inside the home had recently bought it through a real estate company, and while moving, the two residents found that Elizalde had broken into the home through a side door.

Elizalde was the son of the former owner of the home, officials said. The new owners of the home had called 911, but Elizalde had left before deputies arrived, but told the new owners he intended to return to the home.

He was later arrested by patrol deputies on illegal entry, possession of meth and vandalism charges. While being taken to jail, Elizalde told the deputy that he believed the home was still his property and he planned on going back.

The patrol deputy submitted an application to get Elizalde’s bail increased due to the statements he was making on returning to the home, but was ultimately denied by the judge because of the misdemeanor arrest charges.

The new residents of the home were not arrested or cited. The investigation is ongoing.

Refusing to Sell Rifles and Shotguns to 18-to-20-Year-Olds Violates Oregon’s Ban on Public Accommodation Discrimination

Oregon is one of the states that bans retailers from discriminating based on age against customers age 18 and above. (Some states don’t have such rules, or have an age 21 cutoff.) The Oregon statute says it generally applies to any person who is “of age,” which appears to mean 18, the age of majority in Oregon, at least for those products that are legal to sell to 18-to-20-year-olds (as long guns are in Oregon). Indeed, the statute specifically mentions alcohol and marijuana sellers for special treatment, but makes no such special provision for gun sellers (emphasis added):

659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:

(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors …;

(b) The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items … by persons under 21 years of age …; or

(c) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older….

659A.406 Aiding or abetting certain discrimination prohibited. Except as otherwise authorized by ORS 659A.403, it is an unlawful practice for any person to aid or abet any place of public accommodation, as defined in ORS 659A.400, or any employee or person acting on behalf of the place of public accommodation to make any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older….

And in Wednesday’s decision in Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp., the Oregon Court of Appeals (in an opinion by Presiding Judge Erin Lagesen, joined by Judges Bronson James and Jacqueline Kamins) held that the statutory text indeed generally protected customers age 18 and above against age discrimination, including as to sales of long guns. The court added:

Gun violence is an escalating problem in this country….

The law, though, limits the solutions currently available to solve that problem. In particular, current Oregon law, by generally prohibiting discrimination based on age against a person who has reached the age of majority, does not allow for the problem of gun violence to be solved by discriminating against people aged 18 to 20 based on their age.

We, as a court, are not empowered to craft an exception to the legislature’s bar on age discrimination that the legislature itself did not write …. If there is to be an exception to the prohibition on age discrimination contained in ORS 659A.403, it must come from the legislature itself, not from the courts.

Judge Kamins’ concurrence concludes that the question is closer than does the majority, but ultimately agrees with the majority.

US Judge Holds DC Jail Officials in Contempt Over Mistreatment of Capitol Breach Defendant

A federal judge on Oct. 13 held top Washington jail officials in contempt, finding that they violated a U.S. Capitol breach defendant’s civil rights by impeding his access to medical care.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, found Washington jail warden Wanda Patten and Department of Corrections Director Quincy Booth in civil contempt in a written order after expressing displeasure with them during a court hearing.

The order doesn’t include sanctions or penalties, but was being transmitted to Attorney General Merrick Garland for an inquiry into the potential civil rights violations of defendants charged in relation to the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, “as exemplified in this case.”

“It’s clear to me the civil rights of the defendant were violated by the D.C. Department of Corrections,” Lamberth said in federal court in Washington. “I don’t know if it’s because he’s a January 6 defendant or not.”

Continue reading “”

Appeals Court Reinstates Texas Abortion Law

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted an injunction issued Wednesday by [Obama Appointed] District Judge Robert Pitman that blocked enforcement of Texas’ “heartbeat” abortion law. The one-page order of the Appeals Court granted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request for a temporary stay of the District Court’s injunction.

SCOTUS Gun Watch – Week of 10/4/21

The Supreme Court’s new Term is officially underway today.
This Term is shaping up to be a significant one, and Bruen is no small part of that significance.
The Court has also released the order list from its long conference last week, and I have updated the chart accordingly. (I also added one case that slipped under my radar and was flagged by a helpful Twitter follower.)
The Court denied cert in 5 of the cases it considered last week—all the cases except ANJRP and Young.
At first, I thought both could be explained as cases being held pending Bruen, but that actually doesn’t seem right to me now.
After all, the Court didn’t even hold Russell, which was a challenge to NJ’s similar may-issue licensing regime, as it considered Bruen.
Instead, I think ANJRP (a challenge to NJ’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds) and Young (a challenge to Hawaii’s good-cause regime for open carry) look like they may be candidates for the Supreme Court’s further consideration about the Second Amendment’s scope.
One point worth emphasizing is that Bruen (and Young) concern open questions about where weapons can go, and ANJRP concerns open questions about what weapons can be owned, but the Court has shown continuing disinterest in the question of who can own or carry weapons with its cert denial in all pending prohibited-person challenges.

Petitions Pending

Continue reading “”

Thousands cleared by judge’s ruling will seek gun arrest damages
Costs of court loss ‘do not seem to register with the city council’

The District of Columbia has been one of the most aggressive jurisdictions in the nation in the leftist fight against gun rights.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in Washington’s Heller fight that the Constitutional right to bear arms is an individual right.

The high court followed up two years later in the McDonald case by ruling that right applies against the states.

Courts recently struck down D.C.’s demand that individuals show “good reason” for a concealed carry permit.

But now a decision by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth in another fight over guns created by the local government in Washington means it could be getting costly for taxpayers there.

It’s because the judge’s decision “has cleared the way for claims for damages by as many as 4,500 people” who were arrested under the now-defunct law against carrying handguns in public.

The problem was outlined by constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who explained the specific case applies to six people, but the damages could be claimed by thousands.

“Those rising costs do not seem to register with the D.C. City Council,” he explained. “The city could appeal and argue that, at the time of the arrests, it was not clear that the underlying law was unconstitutional.”

Lamberth, however, already rejected that claim and ruled that the law was clearly unconstitutional when the city passed it.

The decision from Lamberth noted how D.C. effectively had “banned non-residents from possessing a firearm,” and prevented anyone “from carrying a weapon in public.”

The six plaintiffs all were arrested and accused of some infraction. One plaintiff, Maggie Smith, a nurse from North Carolina, was stopped during a routine traffic stop, and immediately informed Washington police she was carrying a pistol licensed in her home state.

Cops arrested her, seized her gun and held her overnight in jail.

She was charged not once, but twice, until the charges ultimately were dropped months later. The police still have her gun.

Other plaintiffs had similar experiences.

The judge noted, “At the time of these arrests, the District of Columbia refused to even entertain gun registration applications by individuals who are not residents of the District of Columbia.”

The subsequent lawsuit alleged violations of the Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments by the district’s “gun control regime.”

The ruling said, “There is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims, and no reasonable jury could find for the district.”

Even “construing the facts most favorably to the defendants, the District violated the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by arresting them, detaining them, prosecuting them, and seizing their guns based on an unconstitutional set of D.C. laws,” the judge said.

The judge made the same conclusion regarding the Fifth Amendment claims, noting the district law clearly discriminated against non-residents. And on the Fourth Amendment claim, the judge reached a compromise decision.

“Each of these plaintiffs had their gun seized during their arrest. … None of them have recovered their guns,” he wrote. But he said they had the option of having police send them their weapons at an address in another state.

Turley noted the decision is just “the latest loss of the city, which continues to pass legislation that runs afoul of governing Supreme Court precedent.”

How A Supreme Court Case Is Showing The Divisions Among Us

The Supreme Court of the United States will soon be taking on NYSRPA v. Bruen, which may potentially result in a landmark Second Amendment decision on the right to bear arms. I am keeping my expectations low but hope to be pleasantly surprised next year. After all, the court tends to be measured, cautious and incremental. And lest we forget, the court also narrowed down the question presented when it decided to take on the case.

Besides, even with a favorable ruling, New York State is going to find ways to get around any wins the Supreme Court may hand down to us pesky gun-owning New Yorkers. Our legislators already have some bills in the works to get ahead of the curve.

Regardless of the magnitude of the win or New York’s vendetta in response, this court case has had a previously unthinkable variety of amicus briefs from diverse interest groups. By my count, there have been a total of 85 amicus briefs: 48 in support of the petitioners, 35 in support of New York State, and 2 briefs ostensibly in support of neither party.

The amicus briefs have revealed disagreements that show that Americans’ group identities are nowhere near a monolith when it comes to their rights. Here are some interesting divisions that stand out:

NAAGA vs. NAACP – The National African American Gun Association (NAAGA) has filed an amicus brief in support of New Yorkers’ gun rights. Their brief includes a detailed history of the discrimination endured by African Americans over the course of this country’s history when it came to their constitutionally protected gun rights, and they call for the right remedy to the injustices: protecting the right for everyone, instead of entrenching the power of New York State to discriminate at will. On the opposite side of the debate sits the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which has played an irreplaceable historical role in the civil rights movement, but which has issues when it comes to the inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the pantheon of civil rights.

NAAGA isn’t the only African American gun rights group that filed an amicus brief; Maj Toure’s Black Guns Matter has also filed one in conjunction with two other pro-rights groups.

Pinks Pistols vs. Lambda Legal – The gay rights group Lambda Legal has played an important role in litigation that helped win recognition of the rights of the LGBT community. It was surprising to see them step into the Second Amendment debate with an amicus brief, and disappointing to see the side they chose. However, on the pro-rights side, the nation’s oldest gun rights group that caters to the gay community (Pink Pistols) and the organization it merged with (Operating Blazing Sword) filed an amicus brief emphasizing how gun rights are important to the gay community, and why that right should be protected not just for gay people, but for every American.

Another gun rights group that trains the LGBT community is Armed Equality. They filed their joint amicus brief with Black Guns Matter and A Girl & A Gun Women’s Shooting League.

Independent Women’s Law Center vs. League of Women Voters – Traditionally, the ownership of arms has been associated with men. However, women have been making huge strides in gun ownership and are among the fastest growing demographics when it comes to first-time gun buyers. The League of Women Voters, the organization that registered me to vote after I took my Oath of Citizenship, filed an amicus brief in support of New York. The Independent Women’s Law Center, on the other hand, filed a strong pro-rights brief.

Black Attorneys of Legal Aid and other Public Defenders vs. Prosecutors Against Gun Violence – The people fighting the worst of the legal abuses meted out to the poor are public defenders. They know how horrible the State can be because they are in the trenches fighting the system. The rest of us will likely never know what it’s like to be poor and on the receiving end of a vicious State apparatus. If you don’t have the time to read their amicus brief, just look at the Table of Contents; you will find a series of one-sentence tragic stories. On the anti-rights side, an organization called Prosecutors Against Gun Violence has filed an amicus brief.

Professors of Second Amendment Law vs. Professors of History and Law – Academics are split too. There are dueling amicus briefs submitted by two groups on either side of the debate. In addition to the aforementioned groups, there are other academics who also filed briefs. Professors Robert Leider, Nelson Lund, William English, J. Joel Alicea, Joyce Lee Malcolm (with the FPC) filed amicus briefs on the pro-rights side. Academics from the Duke University Center for Firearms Law also filed a brief ostensibly in support of neither party.

Regardless of the Court’s ruling, this case shows us how no group is monolithic when it comes to political stances, and the support for Second Amendment rights is as wide as it is deep. That’s worthy of celebration.

Firearms in Common Use

Think of the foremost applications of a firearm. Self-defense and protection have become the primary motivation for Americans’ acquisition of firearms, but the prevalence of defensive gun use remains disputed. New research, conducted in support of a brief for the Supreme Court, offers more evidence that a large number of Americans have used a firearm to defend themselves, their loved ones, or their property.

Professor William English offered this summary of his research in his brief:

“Based on a comprehensive online survey of 16,708 adult firearms owners – an unprecedented sample size in the area of scholarly firearms policy research – amicus English recently and reliably concluded that lawful carriage of firearms for self-defense and defensive gun use are statistically common phenomena. In fact, a majority of the over 80 million adult firearms owners in the United States carry a handgun for self-defense under at least some circumstances. More than a quarter of those owners carry handguns for self-defense under right-to-carry laws. And there are, conservatively, an average of 1.67 million defensive gun use incidents per year—an average of over 4,500 every single day— most of which do not occur inside the home.”

English’s technical paper offers more detail about both his methodology and his findings, including a key finding left out of the above summary: 31.1% of American gun owners have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property.

Think about that. Gun owners represent at least a third of American adults, and about a third of gun owners have used their firearm in self-defense. A majority of gun owners who engaged in defensive use – outside of military service, police work, or work as a security guard – have had to do so on two or more occasions.

It’s important to note that firearms, the great equalizer, do not need to be fired or displayed to be effective. According to English’s research, shots were fired in only about 18% of defensive gun usage. In nearly a third of cases, simply saying one was armed was enough to deter an attacker. In a majority of defensive use cases, the gun owner was confronted by two or more assailants. Nearly one in twenty gun owners involved in a defensive use were faced with five or more assailants.

Remember that when President Biden and other radicals talk about restrictions on magazine capacity.

Anti-gun researchers and propagandists like those running the Gun Violence Archive refuse to acknowledge the prevalence of defensive gun use. RealClearInvestigations examined defensive gun use cases on the Gun Violence Archive for January 1st through August 10th of this year and found 774 cases. Less than 4% of these cases involved no shots fired.

That is in direct contrast to the findings of surveys about defensive gun usage, including English’s. Reality tends to contradict gun control radicals’ claims and alleged “common sense.” Even the CDC has acknowledged that, “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million.” The lowest estimates for the annual number of defensive gun use is around 116,000 per year.

That’s a large number of Americans defending themselves and their loved ones, but it’s still considerably below the 2.5 million cases per year estimated by Kleck – and validated with data the CDC hid for decades –  and the 1.67 million annual average calculated by English.

Survey after survey has produced a significant number of defensive gun uses. Gun sales have been steadily increasing for the last several years and skyrocketed last year. Nearly half of new gun owners since January 2019 were women, and the population of new gun owners is even more diverse than the general population.

When will President Biden and other anti-gun zealots realize that millions of responsible Americans have made – and are making – a conscious choice to become firearm owners and millions of these Americans have fortunately been able to defend themselves and their loved ones in times of crisis.

BARR: The Biden Administration’s Laughable 2nd Amendment Arguments To The Supreme Court

On Nov. 3, exactly one year from last year’s presidential election, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on a landmark Second Amendment case challenging New York’s century-old law making it next-to impossible for the average citizen to obtain a permit to lawfully possess a handgun outside their home.

If one were to take the administration’s legal brief as historically correct, one would conclude that the United States is a nation founded on firearms restrictions rather than firearms freedom. Moreover, the Justice Department lawyers declare that New York’s highly prohibitory handgun permitting law is “most modest”!

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS Considers Several 2A Cases In First Conference Of Fall Term

Today is the first conference of the fall term for the Supreme Court, and there are a number of Second Amendment-related cases for the justices to consider. In fact, there are currently five different cases set to be debated in conference today, ranging from a challenge to New Jersey’s ban on “large capacity” magazines to a lawsuit seeking to declare Hawaii’s ban on unlicensed open carry unconstitutional.

Each term the justices will accept only a handful of the thousands of petitions that come before them, so the odds of any one of these 2A cases being heard before the Court are pretty slim, but given that the Supreme Court will be hearing a challenge to New York’s carry laws in November, gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are hopeful that at least one of the cases heard in conference will join New York State Rifle & Pistol Association on the Court’s docket in the near future.

Here’s a quick summary of the cases that the justices will be considering today:

Continue reading “”

Lots of prosecutors are notorious for trying to shore up a weak case by using inflammatory BS that has nothing to do with the case but hope it will influence the jury.


JUDGE DENIES ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY CONNECTING KYLE RITTENHOUSE TO PROUD BOYS

A judge in Wisconsin sided with defense attorneys Friday and denied motions filed by prosecutors seeking to admit evidence at trial showing Kyle Rittenhouse’s involvement in a previous fight and his alleged association with the Proud Boys.

Among their multiple motions filed, prosecutors were hoping to admit evidence Rittenhouse had an association with the Proud Boys, a group linked to political violence.

In January, Rittenhouse pleaded not guilty to two felony charges of homicide in the deaths of Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, and felony attempted homicide for wounding Gaige Grosskreutz during protests in August 2020, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Specifically, in regard to January 2021, months after the Kenosha shooting, when Rittenhouse went to a local bar with his mother about 90 minutes after his arraignment, Rittenhouse posed for pictures with individuals seen flashing the ‘OK’ sign, which prosecutors say has been co-opted as a sign of ‘white power’ by known white supremacist groups.

According to prosecutors, they have since learned some of the people he posed with were in the “highest echelons” of the Wisconsin chapter of the Proud Boys.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi said, “There’s no information Mr. Rittenhouse knew who they were.”

“For this to be considered by you (Judge Schroeder), there must be evidence… that on August 25th, 2020 Kyle Rittenhouse was either a member of the Proud Boys or had loyalties to that group,” said Chirafisi, who added there was no evidence of that.

Kenosha County Judge Schroeder agreed with the defense, “For me to let that in as evidence for a motive that existed four months earlier? Can’t see it.”

Continue reading “”

New York Files SCOTUS Brief Defending Its Carry Laws

Oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen won’t take place until early November, but both sides have now filed their main briefs in the case, with New York AG Letitia James submitting the state’s response to the plaintiffs on Wednesday of this week.

James’ main argument in defense of New York’s “may issue” concealed carry permitting system amounts to this: since the Second Amendment doesn’t curtail any and all gun regulations, New York’s restrictions should be okay even though they result in the plaintiff’s being unable to lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense outside of a few wilderness areas or, in one case, on the way to and from their job.

Because the Second Amendment “codified a preexisting right” to keep and bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), its contours follow “the historical understanding of the scope of the right,” id. at 625. Given the many historical limits on publicly carrying firearms, this Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment does not confer an “unlimited” right “to carry arms for any sort of confrontation.” Id. at 595. Petitioners’ claim of an entitlement to carry concealed handguns anywhere (or virtually anywhere) in public thus defies both the historical record and this Court’s precedents.

Honestly, this is a really bad argument for James to make, though I do understand why the brief spends so much time and attention arguing about where folks can carry as opposed to who can carry. The question before the Court is whether or not the Second Amendment rights of the individual plaintiffs were denied when they were denied a carry permit, not whether or not New York’s carry laws deprive everyone of their Second Amendment rights. As you’ll see, James’ argument is that Robert Nash and Brandon Koch aren’t having their rights infringed, because the fact that they’ve been issued a restricted license should satisfy their 2A rights even though they can’t carry for self-defense in the course of their daily lives.

Continue reading “”

Stupid grandstanding move.
Of course that goes along with most demoncraps being stupid.
A Federal District Judge is not going to overrule a Supreme Court ruling, and anyone with more than 2 firing synapsis could’ve figured that out and not wasted their time…that is if you aren’t into making political statements.


Judge rejects DOJ move to block Texas abortion law

A federal judge denied a Department of Justice request to block enforcement of the controversial Texas abortion law.

“[T]his case presents complex, important questions of law that merit a full opportunity for the parties to present their positions to the Court,” wrote United States District Judge Robert Pitman in a one page decision Thursday. “Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Opposed Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule, (Dkt. 13), is DENIED.”

The DOJ had asked the judge to grant a temporary restraining order or injunction in an effort to block the state from enforcing the law that effectively bans all abortions in Texas, prohibiting the procedure past roughly six weeks into pregnancy.

The DOJ argued that the bill, signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, would “prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights.” The DOJ cited the Supreme Court, which ruled that “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.” The new Texas law bans abortions before many women even know they are pregnant.

The DOJ also argued that Texas had “an unprecedented scheme that seeks to deny women and providers the ability to challenge S.B. 8 in federal court. This attempt to shield a plainly unconstitutional law from review cannot stand.”

The ruling comes two weeks after the Supreme Court voted in a 5-4 decision to let the Texas law remain in force, denying an emergency appeal from abortion providers to stay the law until legal challenges can be brought.

The new law went into effect on Sep. 1.

Court Rejects Qualified Immunity For Cop Who Arrested Gun Owner Carrying Valid Permit

In a welcome win for police accountability and gun rights, a federal court rejected a Connecticut police officer’s demand for qualified immunity after he arrested a driver with a valid gun permit for his legally-owned firearm. Blocking the driver’s lawsuit and siding with the officer, Judge Janet Bond Atherton wrote in her opinion, “would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals.”

Continue reading “”

Washington State Supreme Court Will Review Gun Storage Law

A storage law in the Seattle suburb of Edmonds, Washington that requires gun owners to keep their firearms locked up unless they’re under the control of the gun owner will face scrutiny by the state Supreme Court, and Second Amendment activists are hopeful that the local ordinance will be tossed as a result.

In fact, a state appellate court struck down the law earlier this year, ruling that the city violated the state’s firearm preemption law by imposing its own rules on gun owners. Now it’s up to the state Supreme Court to decide whether or not the lower court got it right. As a local website in Edmonds reported back in February when the appellate court decision came down, the case has had a long and winding road since litigation began several years ago.

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge: Capitol Hill Rioters’ Charges Might Be Unconstitutional

There’s going to be a rally in Washington DC this weekend. It’s why the fencing is going back up around the US Capitol Building. There have been over 400 arrests stemming from the January 6 riot that has incorrectly been dubbed an armed insurrection. It was not worse than 9/11. It was not worse than Pearl Harbor and it sure wasn’t as bad as the Civil War. That’s the narrative in newsrooms.

Everyone else has moved the hell on with their lives. NO ONE cares. MSNBC and CNN don’t count. It was not our nation’s best day. It was dark for sure—but it was a riot. Nothing more. And at the end of the day, what occurred were many instances of trespassing on federal property. Only one person died inside the building. Her name was Ashli Babbitt, and she was killed by Capitol Police. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who the liberal media erroneously said was killed by the rioters, died of natural causes. And what the hell happened to the guy who planted pipe bombs at the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic Parties?

In the meantime, some of the jail sentences prosecutors are gunning for are outrageous. Now, a federal judge has concerns about the constitutionality of the charges (via The Hill):

A federal judge on Wednesday questioned whether the obstruction of an official proceeding charge that has been levied against at least 235 defendants in Capitol riot cases is unconstitutionally vague.

During a lengthy hearing Wednesday for the conspiracy case involving 18 members of the far-right extremist group Oath Keepers, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for the District of Columbia asked about the determinations prosecutors used to file a felony charge of “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress.

“Essentially, what you said is, ‘Trust us,’?” Mehta said, according to The Washington Post.

“And that is a real problem when it comes to criminal statutes, to suggest, ‘We know it when we see it, and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.’?”

Defense attorneys, including David W. Fischer, who is representing co-defendant Thomas Edward Caldwell, have argued that the felony charge was not being properly applied to the case, claiming that the congressional certification of Electoral College votes did not meet the definition of an “official proceeding.”

The felony charge, which has been brought against Capitol riot defendants in addition to other misdemeanor offenses, carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

[…]

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Moss also expressed questions on the charge in a separate hearing last month, noting that the government must present a clear differentiation between obstructing an official proceeding and lesser charges that carry maximum punishments of six months in prison.

Judge Mehta is an Obama appointee. The plan for Democrats is to use this to gin up the base ahead of a midterm election year since Joe Biden isn’t giving his party many accomplishments to tout on the stump. It was never about the truth. It was about the narrative. Trump, his supporters, the GOP, rural Americans—we’re all Nazis. That’s the line. Yet, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

That moment came when Afghanistan collapsed last month, and Joe Biden decided to leave Americans behind because he didn’t want to make the Taliban mad by extending the August 31 departure deadline. The Taliban rejected any extension, and we caved. We caved to terrorists.