Supreme Court Refuses to Block Texas From Arresting Illegal Immigrants.

The Supreme Court has acted. Texas is free to deal with illegal migrants in violation of immigration law by arresting them.

The Biden administration failed in its attempt to block a Texas law that allows the state to arrest those suspected of violating U.S. Immigration law. The Biden administration argued that the federal government may enforce or ignore immigration law as it sees fit. It said states like Texas have no say in the matter and no recourse to defend themselves.

The court majority said no to this overreaching, and some justices were not happy.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote, “Today, the Court invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.” The court may still reopen the issue as a constitutional matter later, but for now, the Biden administration may not interfere with Texas.

Biden had wanted an administrative stay to halt any action by Texas as a way of shortcutting the process of appeals.

The Texas migration law makes unauthorized entry into the state, except at a port of entry, a state felony. While such entry is already a federal crime, the Biden administration has turned a blind eye to the law. Texas now has a free hand to defend its state borders.

A federal judge attempted to stay the law’s implementation, but the 5th Circuit overturned that ruling. The Biden administration hoped the Supreme Court would overrule the 5th Circuit. It did not.

The state argued, “Plaintiffs urge the Court to rush straight to the merits of their claims. But these cases do not belong in federal court at all—even apart from the fact that no state court has yet had an opportunity to construe any provision of S.B.4.”

The Supreme Court majority agreed.

“So far as I know, this Court has never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter—or not enter—an administrative stay,” wrote Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh in ruling against the federal government. “I would not get into the business. When entered, an administrative stay is supposed to be a short-lived prelude to the main event: a ruling on the motion for a stay pending appeal. I think it unwise to invite emergency litigation in this Court about whether a court of appeals abused its discretion at this preliminary step.”

Further legal action is expected, but in the meantime, the state of Texas has been given the green light to proceed with enforcing its border.

Man shot, killed by homeowner after allegedly breaking into home in Trenton, New Jersey

TRENTON, N.J. (WPVI) — A man is dead after being shot and killed by a homeowner in Trenton, New Jersey, according to police.

Trenton police responded to Bert Avenue around 10:25 p.m. Sunday, after receiving reports of a shooting in the area. Detectives in the area on an unrelated assignment then found a man on St. Francis Avenue who had a gunshot wound to the chest.

That man, identified as 34-year-old Andray Ingram, was taken to Capital Health Regional Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

During the investigation, police determined that a homeowner on Bert Avenue had fired multiple shots at an unknown individual who allegedly had a hammer, and was banging on the homeowner’s front door and smashing his Ring camera.

The person, who police say they have identified as Ingram, had entered inside the vestibule area of the residence when the shots were fired, according to officials.

Officials say no charges have been filed and the investigation is ongoing.

BLUF:
After consideration of the arguments, the Utah Supreme Court agreed with the district court that Clara “presented evidence showing a reasonable belief that the snowplow posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to him and his passenger.”

Utah Supreme Court upholds prior ruling in first challenge of 2021 self-defense law

SALT LAKE CITY – The Utah Supreme Court sided with a man who fought felony firearm charges by claiming self-defense under a law that went into effect in 2021.

The case in question stems from a shooting in 2019. Jon Michael Clara fired several shots toward a truck with a snowplow that had repeatedly rammed into the SUV he was driving. One of the bullets flew through the cab of a nearby uninvolved vehicle, narrowly missing a child.

A blue truck with a snowplow rammed into an SUV multiple times, spinning it around to face oncoming traffic on Nov. 23, 2019.

Several charges against Clara were dismissed after he made use of a new self-defense law he urged lawmakers to pass. However, in an unusual move, the judge who presided over the case urged prosecutors to appeal his decision. In an opinion released Friday, Utah’s Supreme Court justices concluded that the district court “did not err” in its handling of Clara’s case.

Utah’s self-defense law

HB227 sailed through the Utah legislature in 2021. The law allows people who are charged with a crime and claim self-defense to have a justification hearing before the case goes to trial. If prosecutors cannot disprove a self-defense claim with clear and convincing evidence in that early hearing, the case is permanently dismissed.

That is what happened in Clara’s case in March 2022. Third District Judge Todd Shaughnessy ruled the state had not met its burden of proof, and despite evidence he said “troubles” him, he dismissed the case.

“This is one instance in which the state can appeal,” Shaughnessy said. “I would encourage the state to do that to seek some clarity on exactly what this new law means. But, as I say, I believe my hands are tied.”

The case is one of several the KSL Investigators followed after first reporting on the unintended consequences of the new law.

Utah Supreme Court arguments

During arguments before the Utah Supreme Court in May 2023, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Peterson argued Clara was not acting in self-defense, while defense attorney Ann Taliaferro argued Clara had acted reasonably given the circumstances.

Continue reading “”

INDIANA, UTAH GOVERNORS SIGN SECOND AMENDMENT PRIVACY LAWS

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, applauds Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox for signing the NSSF-supported Second Amendment Privacy Acts in their respective states. The laws will bar the use of a firearm-retailer specific Merchant Category Code (MCC) for banks, credit card companies or financial service providers to track the lawful sale of firearms and ammunition.

Both governors signed their laws, Indiana’s HB 1084 and Utah’s HB 406, in their respective states last week. NSSF worked closely with legislators in those states to bring legislation to protect private and legal purchases from exploitation. The laws are designed to protect the privacy of lawful and private firearm and ammunition purchases from being abused for political purposes by corporate financial service providers and unlawful government search and seizure of legal and private financial transactions.

“Corporate banks and the federal government have already proven they will run roughshod over Second Amendment and Privacy rights. The need to safeguard private and legal purchases of firearms and ammunition by law-abiding citizens has never been greater,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “NSSF thanks both Governor Holcomb and Governor Cox for their leadership in signing these laws that will protect the rights of the citizens in their states. No American should fear being placed on a government watchlist simply for exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms.”

The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) admitted to U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in a letter that it violated the Fourth Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens that protect against illegal search and seizure when it collected the credit card purchase history from banks and credit card companies of individuals who purchased firearms and ammunition in the days surrounding Jan. 6, 2020. Treasury’s FinCEN had no cause, and sought the information without a warrant, to place these law-abiding citizens on a government watchlist only because they exercised their Second Amendment rights to lawfully purchase firearms and ammunition.

The idea of a firearm-retailer specific MCC was borne from antigun New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and Amalgamated Bank, which has been called “The Left’s Private Banker” and bankrolls the Democratic National Committee and several antigun politicians. Amalgamated Bank lobbied the Swiss-based International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for the code’s creation. NSSF has called on Congress to investigate Amalgamated Bank’s role in manipulating the ISO standard setting process.

Sorkin admitted creating a firearm-retailer specific MCC would be a first step to creating a national firearm registry, which is forbidden by federal law.

Indiana and Utah join Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Texas and West Virginia with laws protecting citizens’ Second Amendment privacy. Several other states are considering similar legislation. U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 7450, the NSSF-supported Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, in the U.S. House of Representatives. California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law requiring the use of a firearm-retailer specific MCC and Colorado is considering similar legislation.

Woman arrested after trying to remove squatters from her New York home
“I’m arrested for being in my own home,” she said as cops escorted her off the property.

A 47-year-old New York City woman was recently arrested for unlawful eviction after trying to prevent squatters from re-entering the $1 million property bequeathed to her by her family.

Adele Andaloro changed the locks on the Flushing, Queens home, which according to NYC law is not allowed if “tenants” have inhabited a building for more than 30 days, which in this case, some had.

According to ABC7, a number of people began occupying the home on February 6 and refused to leave. When a crew went out to interview Andaloro, one of the squatters arrived at the property and unlocked the door. After being confronted, however, she fled.

With the door wide open, Andaloro and the crew entered. In addition to her furniture, she discovered two men sleeping in a room at the back of the house, one of whom had only been “renting” for two days. A number of 911 calls were placed, and when police showed up, they took the men away.

Andaloro explained that police told her they could arrest her if the locksmith she had called earlier that day went ahead and changed the locks. Nonetheless, she told him to do it.

A short time later, the two men who had been apprehended returned to the property and confronted her, calling 911.

“Why is it that I have to leave and he doesn’t have to leave?” Andaloro asked officers when they showed up, to which one replied, “Technically he can’t be kicked out. You have to go to [housing] court.”

One of the men claimed to have signed a lease in October, but failed to provide any proof. Andaloro, on the other hand, came prepared with all the necessary paperwork showing that it was, in fact, her home.

In the end, Andaloro was arrested and the men were allowed to remain in the home, pending further legal action.

She lamented the fact that, “by the time someone does their investigation, their work, and their job, it will be over 30 days and this man will still be in my home,” referring to the second squatter who had only been there for two days.

Supreme Court Seems Sympathetic to NRA’s Claims Against New York Debanking Pressure Case
The oral hearings suggest an overall degree of favorability towards the NRA’s allegations of First Amendment violations.

The case, NRA v. Vullo, brought by the National Rifle Association (NRA) against a New York official and alleging freedom of speech violations, has reached the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) and, overall, the justices appeared overall sympathetic toward NRA’s claims.

The respondent to the NRA’s petition to allow the lawsuit to proceed, former New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Maria Vullo, is accused of influencing banks and insurance firms to drop the NRA.

The case concerns two actions taken by Vullo – first seven years ago when DFS started investigating insurance programs in cases of gun injuries tied to NRA. The following year, this resulted in three insurers stopping programs covering such claims in New York, and paying $7 million in fines.

And then, after the Parkland, Florida school shooting in 2018, the official decided it was a good idea to publish a “guidance” letter to banks and insurers (thousands of them), warning how their “reputation” might suffer if they worked with a pro-gun organization. Vullo found success here as well, as a number of insurance companies and banks heeded the warning.

But the NRA’s federal lawsuit that followed accused Vullo of violating NRA’s First Amendment rights. A court first allowed the lawsuit to proceed, but then the court of appeals overturned this ruling. And it is now up to SCOTUS to decide.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing the NRA, explaining its involvement as necessary to prevent the government from going after other groups in a similar way – even though the ACLU’s own ideological slant and that of the NRA are clearly on the opposite ends of the spectrum in the US.

The ACLU’s David Cole told the justices on Monday that SCOTUS should adhere to the Bantam Books v. Sullivan decision in this case, adding that “informal, indirect government efforts to suppress or penalize speech by threatening private intermediaries violate the First Amendment.”

In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth’s practice of notifying distributors about certain books deemed objectionable for minors under 18 amounted to unconstitutional state censorship. This informal censorship violated the First Amendment as it lacked procedural safeguards, leading to the suppression of book distribution without formal legal action. The Court emphasized that while states have the authority to regulate obscene material, they must ensure that such regulation does not infringe on constitutionally protected speech, thus requiring a balance between protecting minors and upholding free speech rights​.

Continue reading “”

Already unconstitutional per SCOTUS in Heller and controlling on state laws per McDonald.

D.C. v Heller (IV para5)
We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Bill would require Rhode Island gun owners to lock firearms when not in use

The Rhode Island Senate approved a bill Tuesday that would require all firearms, when not being used by the owner or another authorized user, to be stored in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock.

Under the bill, the unsafe storage of a firearm would be considered a civil offense that could be punished by a fine of up to $250 for a first offense and $1,000 for a second. Any subsequent violation would be punishable by up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $500.

The measure passed by a 28-7 vote.

The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. Pamela Lauria, said responsible gun owners already take precautions, but those steps should be a requirement, not an option.

Continue reading “”

Law Enforcement Trainers File Scotus Amicus Brief against Maryland Rifle Ban: Citizens should be able to choose the same high-quality defensive arms that peace officers choose.

Last week the International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Association filed an amicus brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging Maryland’s ban on many common semiautomatic rifles. The case is Bianchi v. Brown, and it has an unusual procedural posture; it is a petition for certiorari before judgement. Yet the case is one on which the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled.

This post will first summarize the amicus brief, and then provide the procedural background, which is detailed in the Bianchi plaintiffs’ cert. petition.

The facts about the banned rifles

As detailed in the amicus brief, the semiautomatic rifles banned by the Maryland General Assembly fire only one shot each time the trigger is pressed. This is the same rate of fire as the most common semiautomatic handguns, such as those made by Glock, Smith & Wesson, or Ruger.

The claim by gun prohibition advocates that such guns fire 300 to 500 times per minute has no basis in fact, and is contrary to common sense. It would take a superhuman trigger finger pull a trigger at the rate of 5 to 8 times per second, let alone do so for a full minute.

Nor are the banned rifles, including those based on the AR-15 platform, more powerful than nonbanned rifles. To the contrary, their standard ammunition is .223 inch or 5.56mm bullets that are small compared to most other rifle ammunition. Accordingly, their kinetic energy is lower.

Because the banned rifles are more powerful than handguns, but less powerful than most other rifles, the relatively low wounding power of this ammunition has been confirmed by decades of study by the US Army’s Ballistic Research Laboratory.

Moreover, as documented in police training manuals, the banned rifles are the safest for defensive use within buildings, because their ammunition is especially unlikely to penetrate a wall.

Continue reading “”

Another ‘She said what!?’. The Justice that can’t tell you what a woman is, thinks that the goobermint should have the power to restrict the freedom of the press to protect the populace.

Just to refresh your memories. Here’s the preamble to the Bill of Rights with my emphasis of really important parts.

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Noem is first governor to declare invasion before state legislature

(The Center Square) – When South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem declared an invasion before the state legislature, she became the first governor in modern history to do so.

Texas Gov. Sam Houston referred to an invasion being fought on two fronts before the Texas legislature in 1860, The Center Square first reported.

While Gov. Greg Abbott has invoked constitutional clauses, he has not declared an invasion or laid out the constitutional authority of Texas’ right to self-defense before the Texas legislature. As he’s issued executive orders and sent letters to President Joe Biden citing Texas’ constitutional right to self-defense, 55 Texas counties have passed invasion resolutions and 60 have issued disaster declarations, citing the border crisis.

Last month, Noem spoke before the South Dakota legislature to specifically address the southern border crisis. She said, “Nearly 10 million foreign nationals have broken federal law and they’ve infiltrated our country within the past three years bringing with them drugs, trafficking, crime, and violence,” creating a national security crisis. While American history is “proudly built on the stories of our ancestors who came to this country for opportunity and for a new beginning,” she said, “today, many of those who are entering our country under the current policies of the Biden administration are known terrorists. They’re criminals, they’re human traffickers, and they’re drug cartel members.”

Because of Biden’s policies, “people from over a hundred different countries have heard the story of our open border,” she said. “Countries such as Venezuela are known to be emptying out their prisons and their mental institutions, and they’re sending them to America.

Continue reading “”

If so, we can only hope the Court takes these cases and crams their rulings in Heller, Caetano, McDonald and Bruen down the lower court’s and state’s throats

Groundswell of Second Amendment Cases Seems Destined for the Supreme Court
Federal courts in blue states seem to be upholding the majority of gun control laws, even after landmark Supreme Court decisions upholding the fundamental right to keep and bear arms

We recently posted about the New York Second Amendment case challenging New York’s concealed carry permit law that requires that a permit applicant prove to a local official that he or she is of “good moral character.” Not only is this an absurd requirement (how exactly are you supposed to prove that you have “good moral character”), but even after doing so, said local official then has complete discretion on whether to approve the applicant’s permit request . . . or not. The challengers in the case just asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case after the Second Circuit approved the “good moral character” requirement:

From our report: Second Circuit’s Partial Upholding of New York’s Gun Carry Law Appealed to SCOTUS:

The key part of the Petition [asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case] is its discussion of the New York law’s requirement that New Yorkers prove that they have “good moral character” before obtaining a concealed carry permit:

[T]his case would allow this Court the opportunity to clarify that government may not selectively disarm law-abiding members of “the people” whenever licensing officials feel they are of poor character, potentially dangerous, or otherwise unworthy of enjoying the natural right to self-defense with which they were endowed by their Creator….

In Bruen, this Court rejected New York’s requirement that, to be authorized to bear arms in public, citizens first must demonstrate “proper cause” — defined as “a special need for self-protection.” Here, the panel sanctioned New York’s stand-in requirement that citizens convince licensing officials of their “good moral character” prior to licensure. As the district court explained, New York simply “replaced” proper cause with good moral character, “while retaining (and even expanding) the open-ended discretion afforded to its licensing officers….”

New York’s “good moral character” standard is…a prohibited “suitability” determination and, as the district court noted, is merely a surrogate for the “proper cause” standard that was struck down in Bruen…Indeed, under the CCIA, New York officials decide whether a person “ha[s] the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon….”

It is quite difficult to understand Bruen’s criticism of “suitability” not to include “good moral character.” And it is even more difficult to believe that this Court would approve the discretionary power to deny carry licenses to “all Americans” unless they first “convince a ‘licensing officer’” of their general morality.

In doing some research to see if other cases exist that are working their way through the courts, I was surprised to find out that there are — a lot of them.

Continue reading “”

NSSF PRAISES INDIANA GOVERNOR SIGNING LAW TO END CITY OF GARY LAWSUIT

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praises Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb’s signing of House Bill 1235, legislation that “provides that only the state of Indiana may bring or maintain an action by or on behalf of a political subdivision against a firearm or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, seller, or dealer concerning certain matters.” The bill “prohibits a political subdivision from otherwise independently bringing or maintaining such an action.”

The industry members the City of Gary sued are expected to promptly file a motion to dismiss the case based on this new law that became effective immediately upon the Governor’s signature. Lawyers representing the city acknowledged in their testimony opposing the bill that if it were to be enacted it would mean the City of Gary’s lawsuit will be dismissed. The City of Gary’s nearly quarter-century old frivolous lawsuit against firearm manufacturers seeks to hold them responsible for the criminal actions of unrelated and remote third parties.

“This is a tremendous victory for common sense. The City of Gary never had a serious claim. Instead, it was committed to a losing strategy of lawfare to abuse the courts in order to force through gun control policy outside of legislative channels,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “NSSF is grateful for Indiana Rep. Chris Jeter for his leadership when he introduced this legislation, the Indiana legislature including Sen. Aaron Freeman for its commitment to the law and Governor Holcomb for his faithfulness to the principles of ensuring politically-motivated lawsuits don’t clog our courts and allow special-interests to circumvent the legislative authority reserved by the State of Indiana.”

The City of Gary, Ind., first filed their claims in 1999, as part of a coordinated effort by 40 big city mayors who conspired together through the U.S. Conference of Mayors with gun control activist from Brady United (formerly known as the Brady Center), lawyers and trial lawyers.

All these municipal lawsuits have either been dismissed by the courts, e.g., Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Fransico, Detroit and St. Louis, or simply dropped by several cities, e.g., Boston, Cincinnati and Camden. Many of these municipal lawsuits were dismissed based on state preemption laws enacted between the 1999 to 2001 time period upon which H.B. 1235 is modeled. Like H.B. 1235, these laws – that have been upheld by the courts – reserve to the state the exclusive authority to sue members of the industry except that they allow for breach of warranty and related claims for firearms a political subdivision purchased. 

Additionally, Congress passed in a broad bipartisan fashion, and President George W. Bush signed into law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005. The PLCAA blocks lawsuits that attempt to hold firearm and ammunition industry companies liable for the criminal actions of third parties who misuse the industry’s lawful non-defective products. More specifically, this common-sense law ensures that responsible and law-abiding federally licensed manufacturers and retailers of firearms and ammunition are not unjustly blamed in federal and state civil actions for “the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse” these products that function as designed and intended.