Category: Courts

The Founders knew all about mass killings which were part of the American experience dating back to the Jamestown, Virginia  colony.

The Next Big Hurdle For Gun Controllers

Gun control lawmakers and activists now face a big problem as they pass dozens of new laws to substantially limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens – this new legislation will almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional.

That’s not my opinion. The Supreme Court made it clear in its recent pro–Second Amendment decision. In language that has drawn shockingly little attention, that ruling shows why many proposed gun restrictions infringe on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Before you can even begin a conversation about whether the proposed laws will have any meaningful effect on mass shootings (they won’t), you need to ask whether the gun restrictions are constitutional. Gun-control advocates don’t want the Constitution to get in the way of their policy objectives—but it’s the truth.

And that’s where the Supreme Court’s recent ruling comes in.

In the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ruled that law-abiding citizens have the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. The Supreme Court explicitly affirmed that the Second Amendment protects twin rights: “to keep and bear arms,” with “keep” meaning to own or possess and “bear” meaning to carry outside the home.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
This new law is a blatant attempt to stop people from challenging California’s oppressive firearms laws. It is likely unconstitutional. But will someone be willing to challenge it in court? And even if so, how long will it take for the legal process to play out?

California’s move may also be a sign of things to come from other deep blue states. Now that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, expect to see many more frenzied efforts to curtail gun rights by any means, fair or foul.

Analysis: Examining the California Gun Litigation Trap Few Have Noticed

California lawmakers just passed a law that will have an extraordinary chilling effect on Second Amendment rights—and it has received hardly any discussion.
The state’s latest move should scare anyone concerned about protecting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The measure can be found toward the end of SB-1327, which both houses of the California legislature recently passed. It awaits Democratic Governor Gavin Newsome’s signature. The goal? To block court challenges to California’s gun laws.
The dry, legalistic language obscures the significance: “Notwithstanding any other law, any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent [California, local governments, or government officials] from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that represents any litigant seeking that relief, is jointly and severally liable to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party.”
What does this mean in plain English? If you challenge California’s gun-rights restrictions in court and lose any aspect of the lawsuit, you will be held liable for paying all of the government’s legal fees and costs.
This is a huge matter because the First Amendment affirms the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” and for more than 150 years, federal law has allowed plaintiffs to sue any level of government (federal, state, or local) for violations of constitutional rights. That is why so many civil rights protections have arisen from court challenges. Think of landmark cases involving free speech, equal protection, and voting rights.
Second Amendment rights, too. Only last month, the Supreme Court affirmed the individual’s right to carry firearms outside the home, all because the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association challenged New York State’s restrictive gun-carry law in court.
That is exactly the kind of case California is trying to thwart.

Continue reading “”

Media asking if California’s gun laws will survive

The Bruen decision opened a door. The door is one where many gun control laws in this country, particularly in states like California, will get kicked out of, never to be heard again. The decision laid down a pretty strict test for such laws–did such a law exist at the time of the founding? If not, then it doesn’t survive the text and history standard laid out.

Now, the media is apparently recognizing the possibility

California’s requirement requiring proper cause for people to obtain a concealed weapons permit might not be the last of the Golden State’s gun laws rendered unenforceable by a United States Supreme Court with an expansive view of the Second Amendment, one legal expert says.

Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law and the author of “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” told Nexstar’s KRON that the court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen to overturn that state’s proper cause requirement “clearly affected California in a couple of ways.”

“California has a very similar kind of concealed carry policy as New York,” Winkler said. “The California Attorney General has already issued guidance to law enforcement in California to discount the application of proper cause for concealed carry permits. The second way is that the Supreme Court has in the New York case articulated a new test for Second Amendment cases when gun laws are challenged, and that new test is going to be hard for some of California’s gun laws to survive.”

These include laws such as bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which Winkler said “could be struck down in the years to come.”

Of course, this is amazing news for our friends in California and in other states with a similar lack of regard for people’s Second Amendment rights.

The truth is, those should be struck down.

See, in California, the push has literally been to prohibit gun ownership by civilians. For example, people there can only buy certain handguns; weapons on a particular list of weapons approved by the state. Yet getting approval is an arduous process that most manufacturers aren’t interested in replicating for every new model.

As a result, the options for guns available continue to dwindle, creating a slow-motion handgun ban in the state, all without actually having to ban handguns.

But there’s no historical precedent for such an effort, which means that based on Bruen, there’s absolutely no way this would survive a legal challenge. I’m just waiting for someone with the appropriate standing to file a lawsuit challenging the law.

And that’s only the tip of the iceberg of what all may soon fall in the Golden State. California has an assault weapon ban, a magazine restriction, and other anti-Second Amendment regulations too numerous to delve into. All of them now come under threat from the Bruen decision.

Frankly, it’s glorious.

This is especially amazing in the wake of Greenwood Park, where an armed citizen put an end to a mass shooting and, in the process, shattered numerous anti-gun myths.  In other words, this is a great time for pro-gun advocates despite anti-gun efforts pushed by congressional Democrats. After all, those won’t survive legal challenges either.

California isn’t likely to become a pro-gun state anytime soon. However, they might start looking like one whether than want to or not. If they do, then other anti-gun states will as well, and whether they like it or not, the results will still be something we can all live with.

Judge Denies New York’s Extension In GOA Case Challenging New Concealed Carry Law

The Judge in Antonyuk et al v. Bruen has denied New York State’s motion for an extension to respond to Gun Owners of America’s (GOA) request for a preliminary injunction against the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

The case centers around Ukrainian immigrant Ivan Antonyuk and the CCIA. The CCIA was New York’s answer to the New York State Pistol Rifle Association (NYSPRA) v. Bruen Supreme Court decision that knocked down the State’s “may issue” permitting regime. After the decision, Governor Kathy Hochul called an emergency session of the New York State Legislature with the focus of changing the laws to make most of the State off limits for citizens to carry a firearm.

Although the Supreme Court did say certain “sensitive areas” could be gun-free zones, it also noted that the designation had to be used sparingly.

The Court further stated that just because people gather in an area doesn’t mean it could be considered “sensitive.” New York ignored that part of the opinion and passed the CCIA, which made most of the State off limits to firearm carriers. Even private property, by default, is a gun-free zone unless the property owner opted out by posting multiple signs. Violating the law would result in a felony that would see a citizen’s firearms rights stripped for life.

Mr. Antonyuk held an unrestricted carry permit when the legislature passed the CCIA. Instead of the SCOTUS decision making it easier for Antonyuk to carry a firearm in the State, the CCIA restricted the New York resident’s gun rights more than before the landmark ruling. Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation (GOA’s non-profit arm) stepped up to help Mr. Antonyuk challenge the new law. GOA filed a lawsuit against the Empire State and then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. New York responded by asking for a two-week extension to reply to the motion because of “[t]he extensive nature of the briefing that must take place to address all of the issues that Plaintiffs raise in this lawsuit.” The State also cites “[t]he complexity of the constitutional issues involved.”

Continue reading “”

Shifting Burden of Proof of Self-Defense to Prosecution Applies to All Future Trials

A change in state law shifting the burden of proof to the prosecution when self-defense is claimed by a criminal defendant applies to all trials beginning after March 28, 2019, even when the alleged offenses occurred before the law’s effective date, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed two lower court decisions that a Richland County woman, Ladasia Brooks, had the burden to prove her claim of self-defense. She was charged for several crimes related to a 2018 altercation with her ex-boyfriend that caused him serious injury. The Court was divided 4-3, however, on the reasoning for its holding.

Lawmakers amended Ohio’s self-defense statute, R.C. 2901.05, to apply to all trials occurring on or after its March 2019 effective date. The Court’s decision today reverses a Fifth District Court of Appeals decision that applied the changed burden of proof only to offenses charged after the effective date. The appellate court held that deciding otherwise violates the Ohio Constitution’s prohibition on passing laws that are retroactive.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Jennifer Brunner stated that shifting the burden to the prosecutor does not violate “Ohio’s Retroactivity Clause nor the United States Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause,” because the change is prospective and, even when applied to cases in which the underlying conduct predates the effective date of the statute, it reduces, rather than increases, the burden on criminal defendants.

Continue reading “”

Del. State Sportsmen’s Association Goes to Court Over Gun Bills

The Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association said Wednesday it has filed the first of what will likely be three court challenges to gun-related bills that were signed by Governor John Carney on the final day of the Delaware General Assembly Session June 30th.

The target is House Bill 450, which the DSSA said bans a “long list of commonly owned rifles, shotguns and pistols, pejoratively and inaccurately labeling those firearms as ‘assault weapons.’”

“DSSA has been protecting and defending the rights of Delaware’s hunters, sportsmen and women, and law-abiding gun owners since 1968. This is not the first time we have challenged unconstitutional and illegal actions of government officials in court, and it will not be the last,” Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association President Jeff Hague said. “We promised our members and the people of Delaware that if HB 450 ever became law we would challenge that law and today we kept that promise.”

According to the DSSA, this case filed in U.S. District Court calls for HB 450 to be declared in violation of not only someone’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed in the Delaware and United States Constitutions, but other constitutional provisions as well: “the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and the “takings” clauses of both the Delaware and United States Constitutions.”

Hague anticipates that the DSSA will also represent gun rights supporters in challenging laws that ban or restrict standard capacity magazines (called large-capacity magazines by the bill’s sponsors) and that would prohibit anyone under age 21 from possessing most firearms, with certain exceptions.

“We kept our promise on HB 450, we will keep our promise on those bills as well. We are both duty and honor bound to protect the constitutional rights of our members and the people of Delaware, and we shall do so,” Hague said.

“DSSA was joined in this action by the Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club, The Delaware Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the Delaware Rifle and Pistol Club and several individual members of those
organizations,” DSSA said in a statement.

DSSA Complaint re: HB 450Download

The Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association said Wednesday it has filed the first of what will likely be three court challenges to gun-related bills that were signed by Governor John Carney on the final day of the Delaware General Assembly Session June 30th.

The target is House Bill 450, which the DSSA said bans a “long list of commonly owned rifles, shotguns and pistols, pejoratively and innaccurately labeling those firearms as ‘assault weapons.’”

Continue reading “”

Fort Collins woman sentenced for perjury in red flag filing involving CSU police officer

A Fort Collins woman was sentenced to probation Tuesday after a jury found her guilty of lying on a red flag petition she filed against the Colorado State University police officer who fatally shot her son.

Susan Holmes was found guilty of perjury and attempting to influence a public servant by a jury in April after lying on an extreme risk protection order petition — also known as a red flag petition — she filed in January 2020 against CSU Cpl. Phillip Morris.

The red flag law allows members of law enforcement, a family member or a household member to petition to have a person’s firearms removed if they are deemed by a judge to be a threat to themselves or others.

In the petition filed Jan. 9, 2020, Holmes checked a box saying she is a family or household member of Morris — one of two officers involved in the fatal shooting of her son, 19-year-old Jeremy Holmes, on July 1, 2017 — specifically that she has a child in common with Morris.

Both officers were cleared from wrongdoing by the district attorney at the time of the shooting, Cliff Riedel.

Continue reading “”

I’m also thinking that 18 USC 922(o) the “Hughes Amendment” is very likely to get axed in the near future, but as to the NFA? Well, this year we’ve seen things happen no one had any idea would happen, so…………

Why I Do Not Expect the Court to Strike Down the National Firearms Act Soon

There are a lot of gun rights activists who seem to have high hopes that the Court will overturn the National Firearms Act because of the Bruen decision.

I think not and this is why. The Court has seldom engaged in overturn of an existing collection of ideas overly quickly. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) might have seemed sudden to segregationists but it was the last brick in a wall going back a couple decades.

There were decisions starting in the 1930s ruling against racial segregation of public law schools. Some of these laws were really amazingly tax-foolish. Texas built an entire law school for five black law students rather than put them in the same classrooms as white students. South Carolina, if my memory serves me correctly, hired tutors to teach two black law students instead of building a separate law school or integrating the existing one. What can I say: Democrats are always willing to waste money for racist reasons.

These previous decisions lead up to the not entirely shocking decision to prohibit de jure segregation K-12.

Going the other way, Roe v. Wade (1973) did not just spring out of the ground. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) recognized a previously invisible right to privacy for married couples seeking contraception. Married couples had a plausible claim to some sort of privacy because English law had always considered a married couple to be one person (almost always to the detriment of the wife’s interests). Later decisions extended this privacy right to contraception to unmarried couples where no English legal tradition had ever existed.

The Court seldom jumps too far ahead of popular sentiment and when they do, the results often backfire. The recent overturn of Roe v. Wade and the Bruen decision both reflect a fairly pronounced change in public sentiment about abortion and guns. The Court’s GVR orders (Grant writ of certiorari, Vacate an appellate court decision, and Remand to the original trial court for rehearing consistent with the Bruen decision) clearly intend to strike down not only good cause concealed carry laws but also state assault weapon and magazine limits.

Americans are not prepared for ready access to automatic weapons. They may be ready for suppressors to be less restricted, especially because the Bruen decision’s gutting of the two step scrutiny process leaves the government in the difficult position of defending the public safety benefit of suppressor licensing. The original NFA hearings seem to have included suppressors with almost no explanation except related to unlawful hunting, which is hardly a public safety matter.

I do think the Hughes Amendment (1986) ban on new machine gun manufacturing for civilians is a first step that they might take, especially because U.S. v. Rock Island Armory did such an effective job of demonstrating that NFA regulation of machine guns was dependent on them being in commerce. They could be taxed only as a consequence of interstate commerce.

THE SCRAMBLE
QUICK REACTION TO SCOTUS RULING WAS REVEALING

Probably before the anger subsided after the U.S. Supreme Court released its 6-3 ruling (earlier article “Supreme Smack Down”) against New York state’s unconstitutional “good cause” requirement to get a carry permit last month, anti-gun officials in the Empire State, neighboring New Jersey and way out in California were busy trying to figure out ways to dance around the decision.

In less than 24 hours, the attorneys general in New Jersey and California issued directives to law enforcement agencies that they were to no longer require permit applicants to show a special need. But that’s only part of it.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s directive included this caveat: “Local officials can and should continue to apply and enforce all other aspects of California law,” the memo says, “with respect to issuing public-carry licenses. In particular, the requirement that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of ‘good moral character’ remains constitutional.”

In Albany, New York, state lawmakers rushed to figure out ways to continue restricting the rights of their constituents as much as possible. They conjured up new requirements for carry permit applications including 15-20 hours of required training, “more extensive” background checks and “greater requirements for safe storage, according to Spectrum News.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion. He has long insisted the high court needs to take more Second Amendment cases. As noted by CNN — which obviously didn’t care for his ruling — back in 2020 Thomas observed, “It is extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.”

But a few paragraphs later, CNN said something stunning: “Thursday’s ruling underscores the character of the contemporary court, which is often at odds with public opinion and in conflict with its predecessor courts, when centrist conservatives controlled the center and prevented the bench from pitching too far right.”

Constitutional historians, at least the pro-gun ones, have repeatedly reminded us that constitutionally protected rights are not subject to public opinion (popularity contests).

Continue reading “”

Long-Term Threats to Second Amendment Warrant Attention ASAP

Second Amendment supporters won a massive victory with New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen – that is undeniable. But what is equally undeniable is the fact some serious, long-term threats have emerged – and Second Amendment supporters need to address them immediately.

For the past few years, anti-Second Amendment extremists have been targeting the means by which we defend out rights. Whether it was Andrew Cuomo and Letitia James going after the National Rifle Association, efforts to pass so-called “campaign reform” schemes, financial deplatforming and other corporate efforts at gun control, including the actions of Kirkland & Ellis, our ability to defend our rights – and the gains we made in securing them is under assault.

The attacks by James and Cuomo can eventually be addressed in court. Ditto for “campaign reform” schemes. Unless, of course, anti-Second Amendment extremists are able to pack the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts). But the threats from government pale to the long-term threats posed from the private sector.

Unlike government at any level – be it federal, state, or local – corporations have a lot more freedom to act against our Second Amendment rights. Like us, they can boycott, divest, and even sanction. The threats have already come from anti-Second Amendment extremists.

What good is the NYSRPA v. Bruen standard if no attorneys are willing to take the case for fear of professional repercussions? In essence, unless Second Amendment supporters can reorient to find ways to influence the biggest corporations and law firms, our rights could be a dead letter for future generations.

The fight against financial deplatforming is no less crucial. If your local FFL or a gun manufacturer can’t access financial services, the Second Amendment is dead. Oh, the legal right to own a gun would be there, but the Second Amendment does not prohibit corporate actions. Salesforce or similar companies can implement their own policies. So can banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions unless we start acting today.

The corporate cubicles and boardrooms will be just as crucial for our Second Amendment rights as the electoral and legislative arenas have been since 1934. These companies can destroy our rights – and leave Second Amendment supporters with little recourse.

It took nearly seven decades to overturn U.S. v. Miller with the Heller decision, and that took a lot of effort to elect Presidents to appoint the right Supreme Court justices and Senators to cast the votes for confirmation. Corporate CEOs can make the decision to financially deplatform FFLs, gun manufacturers, and Second Amendment advocacy organizations in seven minutes or less, to say nothing of boycotting law firms like Clement & Murphy for daring to take on Second Amendment cases.

These days, Second Amendment supporters must not only defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels. They also must defeat them in the boardrooms of corporate America as well.

 

“A judge’s duty is to apply the law as written. They are not there to judge the impact of the law but to apply it.”

Well, there is one more thing;
Judges also have the duty – whether or not you agree on ‘judicial review’ –  to determine whether a law is constitutional. In other words, have the people, via The Constitution, given goobermint the power to legislate upon a certain subject?

SCOTUS: Impact vs The Law

A judge’s duty is to apply the law as written. They are not there to judge the impact of the law but to apply it.

In the zombie movies the rule is “If I become infected, kill me.” And in most zombie movies a loved one becomes infected and instead of destroying them then and there a judgement is made as to the impact. “It will hurt me to much to lose my child/wife/husband so I’ll ignore the law.”

It almost always ends badly.

In the opinion, the three liberal justices repeatedly warn of the devastating impact of the end of Roe, while emphasizing that the majority’s ruling breaks with core tenets of court procedure.

We’ve been having discussions about the impact of Row v. Wade for years. How many women will be affected by restricted access to abortions vs. the number of babies killed by abortion?

The Dobbs opinion ignores the impact and instead focuses on what the law actually says. What was written, the Rule of Law.

This is the difference between progressives and conservatives. A conservative can be very unhappy over an opinion but will judge that opinion by the Rule of Law. We’ve lost cases because the law wasn’t in our favor. And when those rulings go against us, we attempt to modify the law through legislative means.

A progressive judges everything by its impact. As part of that they apply modifiers based on who is arguing. Thus they can argue the states should have the right to pass laws in one breath and the next argue that the federal government should make the controlling laws. They feel no conflict because they judge based on the impact, not the Rule of Law.

Paul Schiff Berman, a professor at George Washington University Law School, said dissenting opinions help foster “a culture of argument” around America’s laws.
Advertisement

“It reflects the idea that law is not just a set of rules but is an argument about how to put society together,” Berman said. “Even a view that is not going to be the law of the land at a particular moment in history nevertheless gets articulated in the public arena, so people can see that there is a debate going on that they can be part of and that these things change over time.”

The progressives want the court to be another legislature. The goal is to create an opinion that achieves the outcome the left wants. It is not the rule of law but “how to put society together.” It isn’t about careful, critical analysis of the issue at hand but in writing for the masses with what they want to hear.

The descent of the liberal judges always have emotional foundations. The arguments are seldom about why the conservative opinion is wrong on a legal stand point but rather how it is wrong on an emotional or pseudo moral basis.

— The Guardian What the liberal justices’ scorching dissent reveals about the US supreme court

Some marching orders in NJ’s magazine capacity suit GVR

Four grant, vacate, remands (GVR) have been reported on since the NYSRPA v. Buren decision came down from the high court. All of the cases are being closely watched, as they are high profile. One of which is Association New Jersey Rifle, et al v. Attorney General New Jersey, et al

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) recently tweeted about some marching orders handed down to the parties concerning the fate of the case, stating they’ve been watching it.

 

In a followup, FPC they provided a link to their friend of the court brief from September of 2020. The screen shotted letter, accessible as a PDF HERE, sent out the court’s directives on the matter.

Continue reading “”

The race is on to challenge New York’s post-Bruen gun control laws

When New York State Rifle & Pistol Association executive director Tom King joined Cam & Co on Wednesday, he told us that attorneys were already poring over the new gun control laws rushed through the Democratic-controlled legislature in the wake of the Supreme Court striking down the state’s “may issue” carry laws, and said that a lawsuit would be coming “sooner rather than later.”

We’re probably going to end up seeing multiple challenges filed by various organizations and individuals, honestly, and it looks like the first suit could be coming early next week, though not necessarily from NYSRPA.

Carl Paladino, a Republican candidate for New York’s 23rd Congressional District, announced on Thursday he’s retained counsel and will personally fund a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s new concealed carry measures on behalf of the people of New York.

Prominent Buffalo-area attorney Paul Cambria will represent him and they hope to file in federal court by Monday morning.

… Meanwhile, New York Republican Party Chairman Nick Langworthy pledged to sue last week as well and Thursday announced the Republican Party will partner with the state Conservative Party, saying, “we have been working the phones and talking to legal experts to build a coalition and bring a winning case that will stop this law in its tracks.”

“I’m sick and tired of Democrats running roughshod over our Constitution and going after upstanding citizens while letting violent thugs wreak havoc on our streets. I’m going to sue them again and we’re going to win again,” Langworthy said.

Langworthy is also running against Paladino in the 23rd District primary and Paladino said he believes it’s a conflict of interest for the chair to use state party resources to sue while advancing his own campaign simultaneously.

Paladino said he would be willing to partner with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which said it has been pulling together its own legal resources. NYSRPA President Tom King, in a statement, also said however, he is 100% behind the GOP-Conservative Party effort.

If Paladino files his suit on Monday, I don’t think it will be long at all before the GOP/Conservative launches its own legal fight, especially with Paladino and Langworthy both vying for the nomination in NY-23.

Now that we know legal action is imminent, what about the likelihood of success? Even some fans of gun control think that many of the new laws imposed by New York Democrats are on dubious constitutional grounds based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen.

Among the provisions that could be ripe for litigation are the expanded requirements that the applicant must possess “essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.” A more limited “moral character” clause was already a part of the existing law, which will remain in effect until Sept. 1.

“How do they specify or operationalize that if you don’t have clear, objective criteria that might satisfy what the court said?” said Robert Spitzer, distinguished service professor of political science emeritus at SUNY Cortland who has authored five books on gun control. “That is a big question mark.”

In addition, permit applicants must also provide the licensing agency – which is typically a police department – with information about their social media accounts. The Times-Union editorial board suggested on Thursday this provision could be a violation of First Amendment protections. Spitzer, however, noted, there is extensive precedent to using social media as a reference point when assessing applicants for jobs or colleges, but noted the social media requirement is “more vulnerable than some other provisions” of the new law.

Regardless of what exactly was included in the new restrictions, gun rights advocates and Republicans would be likely to challenge them, he said.

“The big step was not that the Supreme Court struck down the just cause provision of the state’s carry law, but that they expanded the definition of Second Amendment rights and changed the criteria for evaluating the constitutionality of gun laws generally, so the effect of it will invite challenges to all kinds of gun laws,” he said. “It’s only a matter of time before the state law, no matter what it says, will be challenged in part and in whole.”

To be fair, these challenges were already happening even before Bruen. What’s changed is that thanks to the Court’s explicit rejection of the two-step, tiered scrutiny test used by many lower courts in favor of a “text, history, and tradition” test, it’s going to be much harder for anti-gun lawmakers and activist judges to justify upholding a lot of the gun control laws that are already in place or being rushed into law in the wake of SCOTUS’s decision… including the New York laws that are set to take effect on September 1st.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see new lawsuits filed in states like California and New Jersey next week as well. It’s a target rich environment for Second Amendment attorneys at the moment, and hopefully it won’t be too long before their legal arguments hit the mark and put a stop to the civil rights abuses we’re seeing in several blue states.

Gun owners sue to overturn N.J.’s assault weapons ban
They also challenged the state’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines

A group representing over a million New Jersey gun owners has sued New Jersey law enforcement officials in federal court to overturn the state’s ban on semiautomatic firearms and assault weapons.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. filed the complaint Friday, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Maryland to reconsider a similar ban there in light of its ruling declaring a constitutional right to carry handguns in public.

Scott Bach, who heads the association, hopes the Maryland remand means New Jersey’s 32-year-old ban will fall too — like its “justifiable need” requirement did after the U.S. Supreme Court last month relied on the Second Amendment to overturn a concealed carry regulation in New York.

“We’ve been waiting decades for this moment,” Bach said.

New Jersey lawmakers in 1990 criminalized the possession of about 66 semiautomatic rifles and shotguns and those that have either a pistol grip, folding stock, or a magazine that holds more than six rounds, according to the complaint.

Continue reading “”

Gun Rights Champion Dick Heller Sues DC Again, This Time Over Ammo Limits

A man whose lawsuit against the District of Columbia 14 years ago led to the Supreme Court’s recognition that the Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to own firearms, is suing the capital city again, this time over its strict limit on how much ammunition may accompany a person’s concealed handgun in public.

This new lawsuit (pdf) argues that a D.C. regulation preventing holders of concealed pistol carry licenses from carrying more than 20 rounds of ammunition at a time is unconstitutional. Such a limit violates the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit claims, because there is no historical precedent for it, and it interferes with the right of a concealed carrier to properly use a firearm for self-defense in any public confrontations that may arise.

A previous lawsuit by plaintiff Dick Heller against the D.C. government resulted in the high court’s landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Two years later, the high court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that this right “is fully applicable to the States.”

The new lawsuit is one of several that have been filed nationwide after another landmark ruling by the Supreme Court on June 23 in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen that recognized a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion striking down New York’s public carry licensing system that required carry permit applicants to prove they had a special need for a firearm for self-defense.

The plaintiffs in the new lawsuit are Heller, Charles W. Nesby, and the Heller Foundation, Heller’s eponymous nonprofit that educates the public on Second Amendment issues. They are suing the District of Columbia and Metropolitan Police Department Chief Robert J. Contee III. The lawsuit was filed on June 30 in the federal district court in Washington.

George L. Lyon Jr. of Arsenal Attorneys represents the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit. Lyon who was also one of the original plaintiffs in District of Columbia v. Heller, is attorney of record in another new lawsuit launched by gun owners in the nation’s capital who want to be allowed to carry firearms on the Metro, the region’s crime-ridden public transit system.

Heller holds a concealed pistol carry license issued by the police chief. He regularly carries a concealed firearm for personal protection within the District, the legal complaint states.

There is “no historical analog for a limit on the amount of ammunition that you can carry for self-defense,” which makes D.C.’s limit “obviously unconstitutional,” Lyon told The Epoch Times in an interview.

This matters because “you should be able to carry the amount of ammunition that you believe you need in order to protect yourself, and that may vary,” he said.

“If I go to walk my dog at noon in my nice area … I’m probably good with my five-shot revolver, and one speed load, which is what is allowed to me if I’m carrying that gun in the District of Columbia,” Lyon said. But if he is walking his dog at two o’clock in the morning, he said he is “going to feel much more secure by carrying a bit more ammunition than that.”

Current D.C. law unfairly limits the carry choices of gun owners, he said, offering a personal example. The law allows him to carry no more than 20 rounds, or given his choice of handgun, only enough ammo to reload his gun twice, which is just 10 rounds, he said. If he carries a full-size Glock 17, which has a larger capacity, he can do that and carry more rounds, but it is more difficult to conceal, especially in warm-weather clothes, Lyon added.

Lyon said “there’s a lot wrong with D.C. gun laws, and I think it’s probably best to take them one at a time. That’s why in the Metro carry lawsuit, the only thing I’m attacking is the part that I think is the absolute weakest.”

“One of the mistakes that has been made in some litigation is to try and do too much and [end up], not accomplishing much. It’s easy to convince the judge that there’s one thing that’s wrong; it’s a lot harder to convince the judge that there are 15 things wrong.”

“My belief is that the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time,” Lyon added.

Gun owners sue D.C., demanding to carry firearms on Metro
The plaintiffs say a recent Supreme Court ruling opens the door for guns on buses and trains.

Four men with permits to carry concealed handguns in the District sued the city on Thursday, arguing that the ban on carrying firearms in the Metro transit system is unconstitutional under a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, cites the Supreme Court’s June 23 decision that makes it harder for governments to restrict the carrying of pistols outside the home. Writing for the court’s 6-to-3 conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that to ban concealed handguns in a particular place, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The District prohibits people with concealed-carry permits to carry weapons in more than a dozen locations designated “sensitive areas,” including schools, government buildings, polling places, medical offices and businesses serving alcohol, in addition to the transit system. In the lawsuit filed Thursday, the plaintiffs argue that Metro should be removed from the list.
“Public transportation vehicles and stations, essentially the D.C. Metro, share few, if any, characteristics supporting the designation of other locations as sensitive areas,” the lawsuit says.

Unlike schools and government offices, for example, the Metro system is “not populated with individuals who would be high-value targets to a terrorist or active killer,” the plaintiffs contend. “They are not landmarks or symbols of our nation which would be inviting to terrorists or active killers. … There is not a tradition or history of prohibitions of carrying firearms on public transportation vehicles. In short, there is no basis to label the Metro as a sensitive area.”
The office of D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) vowed to fight the lawsuit — one of many such cases that are likely to arise across the country in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling last week in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen.
Racine “will continue to defend the District’s common-sense gun regulations and keep District residents safe,” the office said in a statement. “As the Supreme Court said, the Second Amendment is not a license to keep and carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose.”
Although the lawsuit challenges only the ban on guns in the transit system, George L. Lyon Jr., a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said other locations on the prohibition list are “questionable” and could be the focus of future litigation.
“I don’t think anyone at this stage can complain about [barring guns in] schools or government buildings or polling places or around the White House or the vice president’s residence,” Lyon said in an interview.
“But once you get away from that, things start to become much less certain,” he said. “For example, I’ll give them penal institutions and I’ll give them mental hospitals. But I’m not sure I can give them doctors’ offices or veterinary offices.”
His clients are identified in the lawsuit as Gregory T. Angelo and Tyler Yzaguirre, both of Northeast Washington; Cameron M. Erickson of Northwest Washington.; and Robert M. Miller of Fairfax County. The lawsuit says the four are regular users of the Metro system and all have permits to carry concealed handguns in the District.
The District’s gun laws have been a continual focus of legal challenges for years.
In 2008, the Supreme Court invalidated the city’s decades-old ban on handgun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark ruling that said the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own firearms unconnected with service in a militia. The court in Heller also said that governments could enact reasonable firearms restrictions, and the District adopted a regimen of controls, including a ban on concealed-carry.
The ban was later thrown out by a judge, after which the city adopted a list of “sensitive areas” where people with concealed-carry licenses would be barred from carrying their weapons.

I’ve got a phone number for the author
1-800-CRY-BABY

Word’s mean things. And the idea that one can be like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

with the words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, is how we’ve gotten to the point we’re now at; where bureaucraps, politicians, judges and justices have deceitfully twisted the words of the Constitution into whatever pretzel would get them the results they wanted.

America gets first taste of an originalist Supreme Court
Experts and justices alike are critiquing the conservative majority for an uneven application of their judicial philosophy.

WASHINGTON (CN) — Following a deluge of blockbuster rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, experts have likened the legal underpinnings of those decisions from the court’s conservative majority to a revolution in constitutional law.

Reading many of the court’s opinions this term, you’ll find the phrase “original meaning of the constitutional text” quite frequently. This phrase refers to the judicial philosophy known as originalism, which interprets the Constitution based on the original understanding at the time it was adopted.

“The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion that struck down New York restrictions on who gets to carry a concealed weapon. “Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”

Thomas’ opinion in the gun case lays out an originalist framework for deciding if concealed-carry regulations violate the Second Amendment. This means that gun laws in 2022 would violate the Constitution unless they are analogous to gun laws in the 1790s.

The same reasoning was used in the court’s decision that overruled Roe v. Wade and eliminated the federal right to abortion.

“The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote.

Originalism has percolated in legal circles for years, but experts say this is the first time in history a majority on the Supreme Court has adopted the philosophy.

“Over the history of the United States Supreme Court, about six justices have taken the view that the Constitution should be interpreted as solely as it was understood at the time that it was adopted,” David Cole, the national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a phone call. “So it’s very much a minority view. There have been over 100 Supreme Court justices, only six took this originalist approach. Just so happens that five of the six are on the court today.”

Continue reading “”

Gun Group Demands Stay Allowing California “Assault Weapon” Ban Be Lifted

This week, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a motion to lift the stay that was imposed last year in Miller v. Bonta, its lawsuit challenging California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” that resulted in the district court striking down the ban under the Second Amendment. The motion, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The people of California have endured for long enough,” said FPC Policy Counsel Matthew Larosiere.

“Suffering first and worst all too often, Californians are long overdue to have their rights vindicated. We are eager to see this stay lifted and one more nugget of freedom restored in the Golden State.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen eliminates any plausible argument for a stay in this case,” reads the motion. “Whereas Appellants here relied on this and other courts’ familiar two-step interest-balancing approach to claim a likelihood of success on the merits, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected that framework as ‘having one step too many.’”

I THINK ROLLING STONE MAY BE SLIGHTLY OVERREACTING TO THE SUPREME COURT’S EPA RULING:

Libs are mighty upset that the Supreme Court just delivered another conservative victory which would curtail the power of the EPA to just create its own regulations out of thin air, with no congressional approval.

SCOTUS rules the EPA can’t regulate national emissions and industry, effectively ending its unlimited power trip
As of today, the federal government can’t use the FDA to threaten businesses with closure if they don’t follow the demands of an unelected bureaucracy.

The decision basically takes power away from one of the alphabet agencies and empowers Congress to make actual laws. You know, the end of the world.

At least that’s what the uber-lefties over at Rolling Stone appear to actually believe.

Here’s a real thing they actually tweeted out:

Umm, I think you might be overreacting just a tiny bit.

Continue reading “”