A divided U.S. Supreme Court said the president has broad power to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruling that Congress went too far in trying to insulate the agency from political pressure.
The justices on Monday backed the Trump administration in the separation-of-powers clash, striking down a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that protected the director from being fired. The court stopped short of abolishing the agency altogether. Continue reading “”
California’s law requiring background checks on every purchase of ammunition has been a gigantic clusterfark since it took effect back in 2018. Since then, tens of thousands of Californians have been denied the ability to purchase ammunition because of problems with the government’s database of gun owners, while others have had to wait through lengthy delays to simply purchase a box or two of ammunition.
Back in April, a federal judge issued a stay on enforcement of the law, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quickly overruled the lower court, and the law remains in effect for the time being, though the case (known as Rhode vs. Becerra) is still actively being litigated. On Monday, a coalition of 16 attorneys general, all of them Democrats, filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the California law is constitutional and urged the court to permanently vacate the district court’s injunction.
If you live in Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, or Washington you should know that your attorney general has given the green light for your state legislature to implement California-style ammunition control if they want.
WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court has ordered the dismissal of the case against Michael Flynn, a decision that likely ends the long and fraught prosecution of President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser.
In a 2-1 ruling Wednesday, the appeals court ordered U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who has been presiding over the prosecution of Flynn, to dismiss the case. The opinion, authored by D.C. Circuit Court Judge Neomi Rao, called Sullivan’s actions – appointing a third party to challenge the government’s bid to drop its prosecution of Flynn – “unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty” and on the Justice Department’s prosecutorial powers.
Gun rights activists have filed another lawsuit challenging Virginia’s soon-to-become-law gun control measures, this time challenging expanded background checks.
The lawsuit from the Virginia Citizens Defense League and five other plaintiffs was filed late Monday afternoon in Lynchburg Circuit Court. It argues that the law, which is set to take effect July 1, violates residents’ constitutional rights by making them subject to background checks.
As the Supreme Court nears the end of its 2019-2020 term, it is becoming increasingly questionable whether the “conservative majority” that Trump appointees Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were supposed to have ushered in actually exists.
Ever since his legally convoluted majority opinion upholding Obamacare against serious constitutional challenge eight years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts has provided conservatives plenty of reason to suspect he is not the “conservative” jurist in whom many had pinned hopes. However, a handful of decisions by the Court in the past two months have raised new red flags that the problems with the “conservative” majority run deeper than a single jurist.
An additional concern is that recent public threats by leading Democrat senators directed against the Court’s Republican-appointed justices might well have intimidated some of them into tempering their views.
At issue were 10 petitions that offered the court opportunities to clarify the most important and contentious issues in the modern Second Amendment landscape, controversies that in some cases have led to radically different approaches by public officials and the lower courts.
The high court, however, passed on all of them. The Supreme Court’s most recent “punt” prompted outrage not only from pro-gun activists, but by members of the court itself who remain committed to upholding Second Amendment rights.
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- We’ve all heard, and probably used or argued against various analogies about regulating guns like we regulate cars, or comparing the ID requirements for buying a gun to the ID requirements for voting. Still, maybe it’s time to take these analogies out of the hypothetical realm of the debate platform, and into the real world of legislation.
What if pro-rights politicians were to craft legislation that echoed gun control laws, but was applied to such things as voting, purchasing an automobile, publishing a newspaper, and obtaining abortion services?
These last few weeks, the Arbalest Quarrel has been working steadfastly on analyzing the NYC gun transport case. We felt a detailed analysis necessary as we had serious doubts the Court would grant cert in any of the ten pending Second Amendment cases.
The NYC case provided our best chance for a serious Court review of 2A, ten years after the McDonald decision, clarifying and cementing the import and purport of Heller and McDonald in Supreme Court case law. The opportunity provided the Court is gone. And, that lost opportunity is rightfully placed at the feet of the Chief Justice, himself.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review all ten of the Second Amendment cases it had pending on its docket. Though the cases presented different fact patterns and procedural postures, the Court simply refused to weigh in on any of them. There seems to be one likely reason: Chief Justice Roberts does not want the Court to take a stance on the Second Amendment. We know because it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case but five to reach a decision once a case is heard — and there are four justices on record as being in favor of the Court’s reviewing Second Amendment issues.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Supreme Court in October 2018, taking over the seat from retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. In January 2019, after nearly a decade of declining to hear a Second Amendment case, the Court granted review in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. Many observers—myself certainly included—thought the new Court would have an increased interest in resolving questions about the substance and methodology of the right that Heller announced in 2008. But, after NYSRPA was dismissed as moot earlier this year, the Supreme Court this week denied review in the 10 cases it had been holding for NYSRPA. It’s not totally clear why. But one thing is clear: Justice Thomas thinks the Court abdicated its responsibility in doing so. In this post, I unpack his dissent from the denial of certiorari in one of these cases and question what’s next for the Second Amendment at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held today that President Obama’s DACA program is clearly illegal. That should have been the end of the inquiry. If a president can’t undo the illegal acts of his predecessor, that can lead only to ever-expanding executive power.https://t.co/yCpa4mUdRe
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Opponents of gun safety laws have again failed in their efforts to get the Supreme Court to adopt their extreme and dangerous approach,” Eric Tirschwell, managing director for Everytown Law crowed Monday, following the high court’s refusal to consider any of the 10 gun owner rights appeals petitioning to be heard. “In each of the cases, the lower courts correctly determined the Second Amendment is not a barrier to the reasonable, life-saving gun safety policies being challenged. The Supreme Court recognized there is no need to revisit these thorough rulings.”
They were pretty moderate cases, really, some challenging “special needs justifications” used to turn “may issue” into “don’t hold your breath,” bans on “commonly owned” standard capacity magazines and firearms, a challenge to interstate prohibitions on handguns sales, a challenge to a ban on handguns that do not employ microstamping and a challenge to the denial of rights to non-residents.
It’s not like anybody was asking them to admit the Founder’s mandate that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Or recognize the core purpose of the Second Amendment, and how state infringements undermine “the security of a free State” and of the Republic as a whole to the benefit of “enemies foreign and domestic.”
And that makes it fair for gun owners to ask what the hell is going on with the Supreme Court, and particularly with its top turncoat.
This confirms it, Roberts is the new squish. Especially if it will be used against Trump. This was nothing more than an executive order by Obama and if a succeeding President can’t execute the powers of office, well………
The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump Administration’s request to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program implemented by President Obama via executive order. The non-congressionally authorized administrative program created avenues to citizenship status for children if they had come to the United States with their parents before the age of 16, also known as DREAMers. In the conclusion of a highly-watched court battle over the controversial immigration program, the high court ruled in favor of keeping DACA in place by a vote of 5-4. Chief Justice John Roberts, a swing vote on the bench, sided with the liberal wing of the court:
#SCOTUS rules against Trump administration in challenge to decision to end #DACA program, which allowed noncitizens brought to this country illegally as children to apply for protection from deportation, holding decision was arbitrary and capricious
Americans have been fighting over guns with growing intensity since the onset of the culture wars in the 1960s. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to sit back and let the battle rage. The court opted not to hear 10 different gun rights cases, including some that would have enabled the justices to clarify key questions about the scope of the Second Amendment.
The court hasn’t decided a major gun rights case since 2010, when it said the Second Amendment applies to states and cities. Gun rights advocates, their appetite whetted by the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established an individual right to gun possession, had hoped to rack up dozens of supplemental victories in the high court by now. But something keeps stalling their progress.
In Monday’s ruling inserting “gender identity” into the word “sex” in a 1964 employment law, the U.S. Supreme Court called a man a woman, possibly leading to eventually forcing everyone else to do so also. The ruling will lead to a tsunami of polarizing court cases and further degradation of Americans’ natural rights to free speech, to free association, and to worshipping God as their consciences require. All this in the name of “equality,” a word that has become a totalitarian weapon.
Gun-rights activists have filed a lawsuit seeking to block the implementation of a Virginia law limiting handgun purchases to one per month.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America filed the challenge last week in Goochland County Circuit Court.
Valerie Trojan, a Goochland resident and member of the two pro-gun groups who says she wants to buy multiple handguns a month from a local gun store after the law takes effect July 1, is also named as a plaintiff in the case, as is the gun shop, Brothers N Arms.
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanagh on Monday admonished their fellow justices for letting Second Amendment cases languish in the lower courts in a dissent to the tribunal’s decision not to take up a gun rights case.