This crap-for-brains is nothing more than petty politics. They’re against it simply because it’s something they see as opposite to their politics

‘Level of ignorance is embarrassing’: Dems push to ban silencers they claim are designed for discreet murder

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) reintroduced the Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR) Act, which would ban the importation, sale, manufacturing, transfer, and possession of gun silencers or suppressors.

Menendez, a founding member of the Senate Gun Violence Prevention Caucus, took to Twitter to tout this gun control effort and in the process proved that he knows very little about that which he seeks to regulate.

“Gun silencers are designed to suppress the sound of gunfire from unknowing victims and reduce the chances they can run, hide, and call the police,” the Democrat said in a statement. “I’m reintroducing the HEAR Act to prevent these deadly devices from making shootings even more dangerous.”

U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) reintroduced the legislation in the House and she was no better informed.

“Silencers are not tools of self-defense, they are tools of murder. They have no legal application, which is why law enforcement officials around the country have called for their elimination,” Coleman said. “The HEAR Act will save lives and is part of the common sense approach to firearms legislation that has widespread support among voters on both sides of the aisle.”

Dana Loesch, a former NRA spokesperson, took to Twitter to call attention to their “level of ignorance.”

“Tell me that you have NO IDEA what silencers do without telling me you have no idea what silencers dSo. Holy wow, this level of ignorance is embarrassing,” she tweeted, before explaining,  “They’re literally required for hunting [in] Britain to protect hearing. It merely reduces decibel levels to that of concert PA system. Moron.”

Continue reading “”

Delaware: Federal District Judge Finds Unusual Way to Ban Semi-Auto Guns & Magazines

On March 27, 2023, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that denied the request for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the State of Delaware’s unconstitutional ban on some semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines.

Judge Andrews dug deeply into his interpretive consideration to find a way to deny the request for a preliminary injunction.

With the clear guidance given by the Supreme Court in the Bruen decision to clarify the Heller decision on the Second Amendment, Judge Andrews performed some mental gymnastics.

The Bruen decision told lower courts to stop using the convoluted “two-step” framework to decide Second Amendment cases. The “two-step” frame was widely criticized as a way for the lower courts to treat the Second Amendment as a “second-class right” in the Bill of Rights.

Continue reading “”

Man shoots at 2 suspects, wounds 1 after they allegedly attack him in his driveway

KELSO, Wash. — The Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a shooting that happened Thursday afternoon.

Police say that at around 4:30 p.m. the Sheriff’s Office received the report that a man had been shot near Riverside Park in Kelso.

Law enforcement arrived at the scene and quickly located a man with a pistol. He was taken into custody by police, and acknowledged he has fired a shot at two people he claimed were assaulting him.

Deputies found a vehicle related to the incident near Rainbow Way and West Side Hwy, with the shooting victim inside.

The victim was taken to the hospital for treatment of minor injuries and the Sheriff’s Office closed West Side Highway for about an hour to account for everyone and process evidence.

During the investigation deputies interviewed multiple witnesses and obtained video of the altercation.

They learned that a man and a woman were sitting in their vehicle, in the driveway of their home, when they were approached by multiple suspects. Two men, identified by police as Asa McVay Keith Kelly, 21, of Longview, and Kamrin Alexander Kerr,19, of Longview, entered the driveway and confronted the man who was in the vehicle. Kelly and Kerr were seen opening the man’s door, and Kelly struck the man several times.

Kelly reportedly accused the man in the driver’s seat of being in a rival gang. As the man was being assaulted, he drew a pistol, exited the vehicle, and fired one shot, striking Kerr. The man stated he fired in self-defense.

The suspects involved in the assault fled the scene in the vehicle that was later located near Rainbow Way.

Based on witness statements and video corroborating the man’s statement, he was interviewed and released without charges.

Asa Kelly and Kamrin Kerr were booked into Cowlitz County Jail on charges of Assault 4th Degree and Criminal Trespass 2nd Degree.

What’s in the Washington State Gun Ban

Things went from bad to worse for Washington state gun owners on April 25, when anti-Second Amendment Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed a punitive ban on many common semi-automatic firearms.

As he did so Gov. Inslee chided each and every owner of the more-than-24-million semi-automatic rifles currently owned and used for hunting, sport shooting, competition and self-defense in the United States, by saying, “No one needs an AR-15 to protect your family. You only need it to kill other families.”

Inslee later said, “We know we need to continue this effort on a national basis.”

H.B. 1240 is now the country’s most-comprehensive ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and firearm parts, according to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). “HB 1240 is the worst of such schemes in the country, exceeding what California imposes on its citizens,” reported NRA-ILA.

The new law bans the future manufacture, transfer and import of many semi-automatic firearms—including 62 enumerated firearm models and the “AR-15 in all forms”—on a list that includes shotguns, handguns and rifles. All semi-automatic rifles with an overall length of less than 30 inches are banned, as are any firearms with one or more of the features that exist on many modern designs. Semi-automatic pistols with threaded barrels, which are commonly used for self-defense, are included in the ban, as are semi-automatic shotguns with thumbhole stocks.

Additionally, the new law bans spare parts and what it calls “combination[s] of parts” that can be used to assemble banned firearms, but that are simply pieces of metal and plastic on their own. Because the bill included an emergency clause, the ban took effect immediately.

Proving that lawmakers recognize such firearms as being effective for defensive purposes, the law exempts, “The manufacture, importation, distribution, offer for sale or sale of an assault weapon by a licensed firearms manufacturer for the purposes of sale to any branch of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington, or to any law enforcement agency for use by that agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes.”

Of course, the NRA has already filed suit challenging the Washington ban.

“A state may not ‘prohibit an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for a lawful purpose.’ Yet that is precisely what Washington State has just done,” the lawsuit says. “HB 1240 takes the radical step of banning nearly every modern semiautomatic rifle—the single most popular type of rifle in the country, possessed by Americans in the tens of millions. Indeed, Americans buy more of the most popular type of semiautomatic rifle (the AR-15) each year than the most popular type of automobile (the Ford F-150), and there are more AR-15-style rifles in private hands in America today than subscribers to all daily newspapers nationwide combined.” The lawsuit asks the court to declare HB 1240 unconstitutional and enjoin the state from enforcing it in the future.The other two measures signed into law by Gov. Inslee on April 25 were S.B. 5078 and H.B. 1143. S.B. 5078 undermines the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), and will subject licensed firearm manufacturers and sellers to frivolous lawsuits brought to recover damages for the criminal misuse of their products.

H.B. 1143 implements a 10-day waiting period, so purchasers will have to wait to take possession of their firearms. The law also denies law-abiding Washington citizens their Second Amendment right to acquire firearms unless they present proof of completion of official, sanctioned firearms training, paid for at their own expense, within the past five years.

Uniformed School Resource Officers Aren’t the Solution to Stop Mass Public Shootings

With six murdered at the Covenant School in Nashville at the end of March, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee proposed over $200 million in new measures to protect schools and prevent more such attacks. One of his proposals is to put “an armed security guard in every school in Tennessee.” Both Republican Senators from Tennessee have offered similar legislation in the form of the federal Safe Schools Act.

Governor Lee understandably wants to do something to prevent this type of violence from ever happening again. But allowing teachers to carry firearms in their classrooms is a much more effective and less costly solution. A bill advanced by a Tennessee state House committee last week would do just that.

Having an armed ally in a school could stop attacks. but identifiable officers are easily targeted.

“A deputy in uniform has an extremely difficult job in stopping these attacks,” noted Sarasota County, Florida, Sheriff Kurt Hoffman. “These terrorists have huge strategic advantages in determining the time and place of attacks. They can wait for a deputy to leave the area or pick an undefended location. Even when police or deputies are in the right place at the right time, those in uniform who can be readily identified as guards may as well be holding up neon signs saying, ‘Shoot me first.’ My deputies know that we cannot be everywhere.”

There’s a good reason air marshals on planes don’t wear uniforms.

If you have an armed officer in a school, don’t put him in uniform and make him readily identifiable. Give him a staff position in the school so it won’t be obvious that he is the one person with a gun.

The prospect of armed resistance deterred the Covenant School shooter from choosing another target. “There was another location that was mentioned, but because of a threat assessment by the suspect of too much

Unfortunately, no one at the Covenant school had a gun to fight back with.

These murderers count on gun-free zones to ensure they will be the only armed person. Last year, the Buffalo, NY shooter wrote in his manifesto: “Areas where CCW permits are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack.”

Unfortunately, national media refuses to report such explicit statements by attackers. Nor do they report that 94% of mass public shootings occur in places where civilians are banned from having guns.

 Violating gun-free school zones in Tennessee means a six-year prison term. While that is a severe penalty for law-abiding citizens, an additional six years for someone such as the Covenant school mass murderer is irrelevant, even if they had lived. The murderer would already be facing six life sentences or the death penalty.

 Twenty states already allow teachers and staff to carry concealed handguns. Any teacher with a concealed handgun permit can carry in Utah and New Hampshire. In other states, school boards or superintendents decide the policy.

 In the thousands of schools where teachers are permitted to carry, no one has been wounded or killed in an attack during school hours. Only at schools where guns are banned have people been hurt or killed in school shootings.

Other common concerns about allowing teachers to carry guns — such as students getting a hold of the weapons or teachers losing their tempers — have never actually occurred.

 Surveys show that criminologists and economists strongly support abolishing gun-free zones in places such as schools.

 President Biden is right that we shouldn’t impose security measures which make schools resemble prisons. There is another alternative. Instead of posting gun-free zone signs in front of schools, let’s post signs which warn attackers that there are teachers with concealed handguns.

Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author most recently of “Gun Control Myths.”

Kentucky Supreme Court overturns rulings that allowed the removal of a Confederate statue

The Kentucky Supreme Court has overturned lower court rulings that allowed leaders in Kentucky’s largest city to remove a Confederate statue from a prominent location three years ago.

The 6-1 ruling issued Thursday said Louisville violated due process in getting approval to remove the John Breckenridge Castleman monument from Cherokee Triangle, news outlets reported.

The statue was vandalized several times over a few years before it was removed from its pedestal in June 2020 following a decision from Louisville’s landmarks commission.

A group called Friends of Louisville Public Art filed a lawsuit challenging the landmarks commission ruling. They argued the statue was a local landmark and said some commission members should not have been allowed to vote because they have a conflict of interest.

While the group acknowledged Castleman’s Confederate ties, they argued that he later renounced his allegiance to the Confederacy. Castleman later served as a brigadier general in the U.S. Army. He was partially responsible for establishing Louisville’s park system and fought to keep the city’s parks and playgrounds open to Black residents.

Kentucky’s Court of Appeals upheld a Jefferson Circuit Court judge’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit. The appeals court ruled that there were “no facts to support the conflict of interests claim.”

The Supreme Court disagreed. Chief Justice Laurance B. VanMeter said it was a “patent” conflict for city employees to vote on the application to remove the monument.

“… Their employment and their being asked to sit in review of an application filed by their employer were sufficient to raise a reasonable question of impartiality such that recusal was required as a matter of law,” he wrote for the majority.

Plaintiff Steve Wiser said he was pleased with the court’s ruling.

Kevin Trager, a spokesman for the city, said officials were reviewing the opinion before deciding how to proceed.

Today, April 29

1429 – Joan of Arc arrives to relieve the Siege of Orléans by the English.

1770 – Captain James Cook arrives in Australia at Botany Bay, which he names.

1861 – Maryland’s House of Delegates votes not to secede from the Union.

1945 – In the Führerbunker,  Adolf Hitler marries his longtime partner Eva Braun and designates Admiral Karl Dönitz as his successor.
Near Munich, Dachau concentration camp is liberated by troops of the U.S. Army’s 42nd Infantry Division.

1946 – The International Military Tribunal for the Far East convenes and indicts former Prime Minister of Japan Hideki Tojo, and 28 former Japanese leaders for war crimes.

1953 – The first U.S. experimental 3D television broadcast shows an episode of Space Patrol on Los Angeles ABC affiliate KECA-TV.

1968 – The musical opera Hair opens at the Biltmore Theatre on Broadway.

1975 – Beginning Operation Frequent Wind, the U.S. begins to evacuate U.S. citizens from Saigon before an expected North Vietnamese takeover.

1986 – The U.S. Navy’s aircraft carrier USS Enterprise becomes the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier to transit the Suez Canal, navigating from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea to relieve the USS Coral Sea.

1992 – Following the acquittal of police officers charged with excessive force in the beating of Rodney King, riots break out over the city. Over the next 3 days, 63 people are killed and hundreds of buildings are destroyed. Armed South Korean merchants guarding their business premises from looters spawn the term “Roof Koreans”.

1997 – The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 enters into force, outlawing the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons by its signatories. Several U.S. government chemical weapons depots from Colorado to Kentucky begin planning on how to safely dispose of their inventory which still continues to date.

2004 – The final Oldsmobile is built in Lansing, Michigan, ending 107 years of vehicle production.

2013 – National Airlines Flight 102, a Boeing 747-400 freighter aircraft, crashes during takeoff from Bagram Airfield in Parwan Province, Afghanistan, killing all 7 U.S. crew aboard.

2015 – A baseball game between the Baltimore Orioles and the Chicago White Sox sets the all time and never to be beaten, low attendance mark for Major League Baseball. Zero fans were in attendance for the game, as the stadium was officially closed to the public due to the 2015 Baltimore protests over an alleged incident of police brutality.

 

Hmm, drone speedbags.

The Marines are getting supersized drones for battlefield resupply
The big flying machines are designed to carry about 150 pounds and can fly at about 67 miles per hour.

On April 11, the Department of Defense announced that it was allocating just over $8 million for 21 new delivery drones. These flying machines, officially called the TRV-150C Tactical Resupply Unmanned Aircraft Systems, are made by Survice Engineering in partnership with Malloy Aeronautics.

The TRV-150C is a four-limbed drone that looks like a quadcopter on stilts. Its tall landing legs allow it to take off with a load of up to 150 pounds of cargo slung underneath. The drone’s four limbs each mount two rotors, making the vehicle more of an octocopter than a quadcopter.

Continue reading “”

Analysis: Will Tennessee GOP Governor’s Red Flag Proposal Change the Debate?

The Volunteer State is the place to watch for the country’s most interesting gun law debate right now.

As gun policy moves forward along preestablished partisan lines in red and blue states, Tennessee is the one place where a policy outside those lines has some chance of passing. Republican Governor Bill Lee, motivated by last month’s Nashville school shooting, is pushing the Republican-controlled legislature to pass a modified “red flag” law, which he has relabeled an “order of protection” law. But, unlike many previous proposals, Lee appears to be working to address common critiques levied against the temporary gun confiscation orders.

“Throughout the last couple of weeks, I have worked with members of the General Assembly – constitutionally minded, second amendment protecting members – to craft legislation for an improved Order of Protection Law that will strengthen the safety and preserve the rights of Tennesseans,” Lee said last week. “We all agree that dangerous, unstable individuals who intend to harm themselves or others should not have access to weapons. And that should be done in a way that requires due process and a high burden of proof, supports law enforcement and punishes false reporting, enhances mental health support, and preserves the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens.”

Since gaining prominence as a possible solution for mass shootings in the wake of the 2018 Parkland shooting, “red flag” laws have been dogged by complaints that they don’t offer sufficient protections for the rights of those accused of being a threat to themselves or others.

In most states that have adopted them, the civil orders can be filed by a wide array of groups, including some where nearly anyone can file for one. They don’t provide a public defender for those accused. They can be granted in ex parte hearings where the accessed isn’t even notified of the proceedings. And it can take weeks after their guns are seized before subjects of the orders can challenge them.

Lee identified these shortcomings as the main problem with policies in other states that he said “don’t deliver the right results.”

“They don’t actually preserve the constitutional rights of Tennesseans in the best way possible, and they don’t actually get to the heart of the problem of preventing tragedies,” he said. “This is hard. I’ve said that all along.”

He’s announced plans for a special session to pass the expanded protection orders. That was requested by GOP House Caucus Chairman Jeremy Faison, who said it was unlikely a bill could be put together with enough support to pass before the end of the regular session. While Lee hasn’t backed any specific bill yet, he has announced the sort of changes he wants.

Continue reading “”

‘Times are changing,’ more women buying guns for self-defense

SAN ANTONIO – National data shows that more women are becoming gun owners. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, gun sales reached record highs in 2020, and women accounted for 40% of all sales.

Carmen Santana is a first-time gun buyer. She has been practicing at the Mission Ridge Shooting Range and Academy on the Northwest Side of San Antonio.

Camilla Rambaldi talks to women who have purchased and trained to use their guns.

“It was more toward protection than anything,” said Santana.

She started a self-defense firearm course six months ago.

“I have two little ones at home. Learning the proper way to handle it, the proper way to hold it,” explained Santana.

The Wall Street Journal reported nearly half of new U.S. gun buyers since the start of 2019 have been women, according to a new study. It’s an increase San Antonio gun ranges have also seen over the last few years.

“We have seen this rise in new gun ownership in women but also those who seek professional level training,” said Corey Molinelli, an instructor at Mission Ridge Shooting Range and Academy.

According to a 2017 Pew Research Survey, women are more likely than men to cite protection as the only reason to own a gun.

“We are getting more women interested in the sport itself of shooting but also the self-defense classes. We see single women who are recently divorced or have never been married and out are on their own,” added Molinelli.

“It’s unfortunate to think that women are coming into situations where they feel like they need to be armed more and more every day,” said Jennifer Knight, Director of Retail Development with U.S. Law Shield and Realtor.

In 2020, she came face to face with an intruder at home she was showing to a client. When they got to the home, she said there were several red flags.

“[We] quickly discovered that there was somebody else in the home with us. There was no real estate sign in the front yard; the grass was overgrown. When we walked into the home, there was an immediate smell,” explained Knight.

The experience motivated her to create a self-defense and situational awareness program for realtors. In 2021, Knight launched her program, Salty Grits.

“Be aware of your surroundings at all times, and don’t ever let your guard down,” said Knight.

The San Antonio mother is hoping her program can help empower other women who want to learn how to defend themselves.

“I think about us, banding together; I think about women helping women. If I could give advice to any woman, it would be never to allow your husband, boyfriend, father, or anybody else to purchase a firearm for you. You’re going to be the one who shoots it. You’re going to be the one carrying that firearm,” added Knight.

Back at the shooting range, Santana said she feels more confident.

“Comfortable. I feel more empowered,” added Santana.

Armed Defense and the Use of Force in Texas

I comment on the use of force. Some of my readers and listeners know more about an incident than I do. I’m lucky that they contacted me and made me smarter. Here is what they said.

Samuel left this comment-

I listen to the Polite Society Podcast every time it comes on and I get a lot out of it. I do have one important thing to please see that you correct.

There was the story recounted of the man who tracked down his stolen car by use of an airpod, and wound up shooting the thief he found in the car. Y’all said he was not yet being charged because Texas allows the use of deadly force in defense of property. That wasn’t the reason. The man confronted the thief and in the course of that confrontation, he shot the thief because he thought the thief was going for a gun. This was self defense, not property defense.

The Texas statute would not have protected him in any case, because the fracas happened during the day. The Texas statute, cited below, specifically applies at night with certain other limitations. I enjoy the show. Keep up the good work.

News source for the story- https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/san-antonio-airtag-shooting-17871230.php

Legal reference on use of force in Texas to protect property- https://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/texas-sec-9-42-deadly-force-to-protect-property/  

Greg is a firearms instructor in Texas, and he sent in a comment also-

My comments are based on public information solely. Any changes to the relevant fact patterns might alter my conclusions.

Texas Penal Code 9.42 offers a bit more wiggle room. An actor ( the victim) may use Deadly Force to recover stolen , robbed or burgled property IF, IF the actor cannot recover the property by other means without exposing themselves to Death or Serious Bodily Injury AND , I say AND , the Grand Jury concludes that the action was reasonable under the circumstances.

The bank manager can use Deadly Force and shoot at the fleeing bank robbers and the Grand Jury Will generally consider that action reasonable.

I tell my students DO NOT shoot a thief, even if they are stealing your new Maserati. Let them go. Call the Sheriff, Constable or city cops. Then call your insurance company.

The “get out of jail free” card in the cited incident was the fact that the car THIEF was reasonable believed to be armed. He was thus not legally a thief but instead had graduated to the status of a “Robber.” If the Robber has a weapon, the offense, in Texas, is called “Aggravated Robbery”. He (the attacker) reasonably and articulably ALSO, in addition to his status as “Aggravated Robber”, poses a reasonable deadly threat to the victim.

Texas Penal Code 9.32 (B) explicitly states that a Defender is JUSTIFIED in using Deadly Force to defend against a Robber/ Aggravated Robber. TPC 9.32 (A) says the Defender May use Deadly Force to Defend against unlawful Deadly Force.

An Aggravated Robber generally falls into both categories. (lethal attacker, and aggravated robber)

As for a thief? Call the cops.

While it took 111 years to happen, by SCOTUS in Bruen,  in October 1911, the editor of Forest And Stream (which later merged with Field And Stream), predicted the overturning of the Sullivan Act of New York by incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

Now Comes ‘Equitable Grading’ to Dumb Down Our Children.

The Wall Street Journal  reports on a growing trend in high schools to ditch homework and move to an “equitable grading” system, which is supposed to measure whether a student knows the classroom material by the end of a term without penalties for behavior like skipping class.

“We’re giving children hope and the opportunity to learn right up until [the class is] officially over,” said Michael Rinaldi, the principal at Westhill High School in Stamford, Conn.

But some students and teachers in Las Vegas claim that some kids are gaming the system and that equitable grading ignores accountability.

“If you go to a job in real life, you can’t pick and choose what tasks you want to do and only do the quote big ones,” said Alyson Henderson, a high-school English teacher there. Lessons drag on now, she said, because students can turn in work until right before grades are due.

We’re really setting students up for a false sense of reality,” Ms. Henderson said.

Equitable grading still typically awards As through Fs, but the criteria are overhauled. Homework, in-class discussions and other practice work, called formative assessments, are weighted at between 10% and 30%. The bulk of a grade is earned through what are known as summative assessments, such as tests or essays.

Extra credit is banned—no more points for bringing in school supplies—as is grading for behavior, which includes habits such as attendance.

The system is set up to give laggards and the terminally lazy as many chances as possible to pass a course. The scale starts at 49 or 50 so that if a student misses a few assignments they won’t just give up and fail. They will still have a chance to pass as long as they complete other tests and essays.

“There’s an apathy that pervades the entire classroom,” said Samuel Hwang, a senior at Ed W. Clark High School in Las Vegas. Hwang has spoken out against the grading changes, saying they provide incentives for poor work habits.

Erin Spata, a science teacher at Westhill High in Connecticut who favors the change, said her students are moving away from constantly asking how many points an assignment will be worth and instead understand the importance of practice work, whether or not it is counted toward the final grade.

So at least the teacher’s students aren’t bothering her about insignificant stuff like a student’s progress in the class and other, you know, teacher stuff.

What I’ve come to realize with all this equity BS in schools is that the cream will still rise to the top. No matter how hard the DEI crowd tries to “level” scholastics, the really smart kids will continue to shine.

The problem with that is that kids who are in the middle of the pack or slightly lower will be left behind. They will still want to go to college, however, and in order to stay in business, colleges are also dumbing down coursework, cheapening a college degree even further.

This cancerous attitude is turning primary and secondary education into factories of uneducated and barely educated students. What will America look like when DEI has done its work and we’re all “equal” in our ignorance?

Federal Judge Rules Felons Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment

Convicted felons do not have gun rights, according to a new federal ruling.

Judge Holly A. Brady, who President Donald Trump appointed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in 2019, denied a request last week to have a felon’s gun possession charge tossed on constitutional grounds. She found the Second Amendment does not protect Detric L. Cummings’, a convicted felon, ability to own a firearm. She further ruled that barring felons from owning guns is consistent with historical gun restrictions.

“The long list of colonial laws excluding felons from possessing firearms either shows that he is excluded from the protections of the Second Amendment or that § 922(g)(1) is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Judge Brady wrote in United States v. Cummings. “Either is enough to defeat Defendant’s motion.”

The ruling is another example of how little success convicted felons have had in asserting protections under the Second Amendment, even in the wake of last year’s landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Despite the doubt cast on many modern gun restrictions by Bruen’s new standard for deciding gun cases, felons have had little success convincing courts that the Second Amendment forstalls prohibitions on their ability to own guns. In fact, Pepperdine University Professor Jake Charles recently released a report that found there hasn’t been a single successful Second Amendment claim brought against the federal law barring possession of firearms by convicted felons.

The recent setbacks come despite a handful of rulings and prominent dissents that questioned the federal lifetime prohibition on at least some, namely non-violent, felons owning guns. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented in favor of restoring the gun rights of a non-violent felon in 2019’s Kanter v. Barr. A similar case brought by a Pennsylvania man barred from owning guns over a welfare fraud conviction, Range v. Garland, recently lost before a panel of the 3rd Circuit but is currently awaiting a decision from the full court after oral arguments were held in February 2023.

United States v. Cummings does not deal with the question of non-violent felon gun rights, though. Cummings was arrested by Fort Wayne, Indiana police last summer for selling methamphetamine, fentanyl, and a revolver to an informant, according to WANE. The 40-year-old was convicted of shooting a woman over an unpaid debt in 2005. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison before being released in 2020.

Judge Brady was indignant at his attempt to have the gun possession charges tossed, arguing his plea flies in the face of “a virtual mountain of case law.” She said, “ninety-plus defendants that have hoed the same row in the past” and been denied. She dismissed his legal argument as little more than “academic.”

“Defendant has chosen the first step as the hill he will die on, arguing that he is one of ‘the people’ whose right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment, regardless of his extensive criminal history,” Judge Brady wrote. “And, to be sure, there is a healthy debate in the case law about who ‘the people’ are. But that debate is interesting only if you view the law as a zesty academic affair rather than a way to run an ordered society.”

She argued that, even if Cummings is part of “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment, historical tradition would allow the government to restrict his access to guns. She briefly pointed to colonial bans on carrying firearms in a way that terrifies people and an 1866 South Carolina ban on “disorderly” people bearing arms. And she cited the Supreme Court’s notice in 2008’s Heller that its ruling did not cast doubt on felon gun bans.

Ultimately, in her two-page opinion, Judge Brady found the debate is settled and unworthy of a lengthy discussion.

“To spend judicial resources agonizing over which the Court should hang its hat on is little more than spilled ink,” she wrote. “More than ninety judicial opinions bear this out.”

Gun rights group files emergency petition to SCOTUS on gun ban case

Illinois has been going above and beyond as of late to make Second Amendment related news. The National Association for Gun Rights filed a lawsuit last year challenging the city of Naperville’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. That case, Bevis et al v. City of Naperville was amended earlier this year to include the State of Illinois as a plaintiff, which enacted a ban in January. The request for an injunction against the law made its way all the way to the Seventh Circuit, and Bevis et.al. were not granted any temporary relief. It was announced in a release that an emergency appeal has been filed to the Supreme Court of the United States on the matter.

There was a similar situation in the Second Circuit Court of appeals, with a challenge to a New York law that’s unconstitutional – also enacted post NYSRPA v. Bruen – and the plaintiffs were moved to make an emergency appeal to the high court. In that case, the Second Circuit refused to respect the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision. While SCOTUS did not intervene in that case, Justice Alito did state in an unsigned order the following:

Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.

Appealing to SCOTUS at these stages in the game for emergency relief is not necessarily something that’s commonplace, but may draw the ire of the justices on how the lower courts are disobeying their orders.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) is asking the United States Supreme Court to provide emergency relief from two assault weapons bans in place in Illinois.

NFGR argues that the Illinois ban violates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms. NFGR’s lawsuit also challenges an AR-15 sale ban enacted by the City of Naperville, IL.

NFGR initially requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois blocking both the state and local bans on behalf of fellow plaintiff, Naperville gun store owner Robert Bevis, whose livelihood has been severely impacted by both bans. The district court trampled multiple Supreme Court precedents to rule against gun rights, so foundation attorneys appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, pleading that Plaintiff Bevis was facing the loss of his business without speedy relief.

The Seventh Circuit declined to temporarily block the two semi-auto bans pending its review of the preliminary injunction appeal, so NFGR is filing an Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appellate Review with the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s interesting to note that in many cases, lower courts have been getting the orders correct. In this case, the Seventh Circuit, and in the case of Antonyuck v. Nigrelli, from the Second Circuit, they are not willing to enjoin bad laws while the cases play out. We’re likely to see cases out of New Jersey challenging the so-called “carry killer” law there, head to the Third Circuit as soon as an opinion is delivered by Judge Bumb in a Federal Court.

Is this going to be the trend? Are the Circuit Courts of Appeal going to completely ignore the Supreme Court on all these issues concerning firearms by reversing the enjoinment/restraining orders of lower courts, or not enjoining them themselves?

“The assault weapons ban is a blatant violation of the rights of law-abiding citizens and does nothing to address the causes of gun violence,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “Between them, Illinois and the City of Naperville are about to drive a law-abiding gun store owner into bankruptcy just because they don’t like his business. That’s grossly unconstitutional, and we’re asking the Supreme Court to put a stop to it.”

NAGAR’s opening remark in their filing to the high court hits at the core of the issue:

This is an exceedingly simple case. The Second Amendment protects arms that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, especially self-defense in the home. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2128 (2022) (citing D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 629 (2008)).

The arms banned by Respondents are possessed by millions of law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. Under this Court’s precedents, “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.” Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Ill., 577 U.S. 1039 (2015) (Thomas, J., joined by Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). There cannot be the slightest question, therefore, that the challenged laws are unconstitutional.

Kudos! to NAGAR for punting this case into the lap of the Supreme Court. Eventually one of these lower courts’ decisions is going to tick off the high court at one of these stages and they’re going to have to step in. At least, one would think so.

Given the way the Circuits behave, we can almost assume that whenever the pending cases in California make their way to the Ninth Circuit, that we’ll be dealing with similar malfeasance within the judicial system, and who knows what’ll come of the cases in the Third Circuit. We’ll be watching the progress of this case and report back with any new developments.