Category: Courts

1 in Every 4 Circuit Court Judges is Now a Trump Appointee

After three years in office, President Trump has remade the federal judiciary, ensuring a conservative tilt for decades and cementing his legacy no matter the outcome of November’s election.

Trump nominees make up 1 in 4 U.S. circuit court judges. Two of his picks sit on the Supreme Court. And this past week, as the House voted to impeach the president, the Republican-led Senate confirmed an additional 13 district court judges.

In total, Trump has installed 187 judges to the federal bench.

Gun regulators have admitted to violating the Second Amendment

On Dec. 11, Gun Owners of America argued before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that the government’s recently enacted ban on bump stocks is illegal.

The organization’s argument is by no means controversial. The government bureau that made them illegal, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, even admitted in a court filing that it lacks authority under the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act to issue the rule. In short, it violated the Second Amendment as a way of reaping more power for itself, and that should not be tolerated.

The GOA can and will continue fighting the illicit actions of gun regulators as they arise in court, and they will be penalized; however, this piecemeal approach can only go so far. It is high time for Second Amendment advocates in Congress and the White House to begin taking action to reform the rogue bureau.

After all, this isn’t the first time the ATF has disregarded the law. Just two months ago, a judge similarly found the bureau to have been enforcing laws that don’t exist against gun owners. The bureau has been pretending that receivers are bound by the same draconian D.C. regulations as entire put-together firearms and have been threatening their manufacturers with prosecution for not going through the full regulatory process.

The methods the bureau has used to generate firearm cases against the American people have always been questionable. In the 1970s and 1980s, Congress studied the issue closely, with a Senate subcommittee report ultimately concluding that “it is apparent that ATF enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible.”…………….

With the ATF’s abuses are still being reported in the news and are fresh on the public’s mind, now is the time for the Senate to begin holding hearings and getting to the bottom of the exploitation.

The Senate Judiciary Committee should call in ATF head Regina Lombardo to discuss the bureau’s legal violations and what steps, if any, are being taken to correct them.

Meanwhile, Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy’s Senate appropriations subcommittee should call the tax bureau’s leaders, Mary J. Ryan and Daniel Riordan, in to see if they accept the deregulatory and transparency orders currently on the books and what action, if any, they are taking to ensure compliance.

If the ATF’s or the tax bureau’s leaders refuse to come before Congress or give lackluster answers to congressional questioning, the Trump administration can and should replace both. As luck would have it, Lombardo, Ryan, and Riordan are only serving in acting roles, so the White House has every right to replace them with permanent leadership officials at any time. In the case of the tax bureau, this would not even require Senate confirmation.

Gun Owners of America will continue to monitor the behavior of both bureaus and fight their illegal activity in court, but substantive change will never occur if we do not receive a helping hand from our friends in Congress and the White House.

Lawsuit challenges state police over new ‘ghost gun’ policy

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) – Businesses that manufacture frames that can be built into working firearms sued Pennsylvania’s attorney general on Friday, five days after he issued a legal opinion classifying the products as guns under state law.

The Commonwealth Court lawsuit asks a state judge to stop the state police from implementing any new policy, including background checks, based on the written opinion the agency received Monday from Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro.

Shapiro told state police to treat unassembled “ghost guns,” gun frames also referred to as 80% receivers, as firearms. The plaintiffs said the opinion does not give fair notice to people regarding what is legal and what is not, said Joshua Prince, who filed the petition.

Supreme Court: Weapons allowed on Madison WI buses

Par for the course that the 2 proggie jurists would be anti-self defense.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) – Wisconsin‘s capital city must allow passengers to carry hidden weapons on buses, the state Supreme Court said Tuesday in siding with a gun rights group that local governments cannot trump the state‘s concealed-carry law.

The ruling from the high court‘s conservative majority could provide fodder for gun advocates to challenge local governments‘ weapon policies they feel are tougher than the state concealed-carry law. City of Madison attorney John Strange said the ruling puts passengers in danger.

“From a public safety perspective, the decision creates greater risk to passengers by allowing guns on moving and crowded buses,” he said.

Wisconsin Carry, a gun rights group, challenged Madison‘s Metro Transit in 2014 after it prohibited a passenger with a concealed-carry license from bringing a gun on a bus. The group argued Metro Transit‘s policy prohibiting weapons of any kind on buses cannot supersede the state‘s concealed-carry law. Metro Transit adopted its rule in 2005.

The state appeals court sided with the city in 2015, saying that Metro Transit‘s rule did not amount to an “ordinance” or “resolution” banning concealed weapons, which the concealed-carry law prohibits. In overturning that ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that passengers can bring firearms or other type weapons on buses, as long as they follow other applicable laws.

The Supreme Court concluded that the concealed-carry law‘s purpose is to allow the carrying of concealed weapons as broadly and uniformly as possible. Following that reasoning, Metro Transit‘s rule functions similarly to an ordinance or resolution passed by a municipality banning concealed weapons and therefore is superseded by the concealed-carry law.

Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel had filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Wisconsin Carry.

The court ruled 5-2, with liberal-leaning Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Shirley Abrahamson dissenting. Justice Daniel Kelly wrote the majority opinion.

In her dissent joined by Abrahamson, Bradley argued that the majority opinion expanded the law‘s intent to fit its purpose. She argued Metro Transit‘s policy does not amount to an ordinance or resolution.

Wisconsin Carry President Nik Clark said the people who rely on public transit should be able to carry concealed weapons just as people who drive their own cars.

As House votes to impeach Trump, McConnell pushes 13 judge nominations through Senate.

“My motto for the remainder of this Congress is ‘leave no vacancy behind,'”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Ahhhhhh HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

While the rest of Washington focused on impeachment proceedings Wednesday, Mitch McConnell successfully pressed forward on a subject that has been the one knockout success for the Republican Senate and President Donald Trump: judges.

Wednesday afternoon, the Senate majority leader forced a deal with Democrats to expedite 11 federal district judge nominations.
McConnell’s thrust is emblematic of what he sees as his crowning achievement. So far, he has led the charge changing the landscape of the federal courts across the country with a record number of appellate court judges — currently at 50 — and Supreme Court nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Georgia: federal judge allows state to proceed with mass voting rolls purge.

Standard practice before the demoncraps started fighting all the anti-fraud measures.

A federal judge is allowing Georgia to proceed with a mass purge of its voting rolls planned for Monday evening, but he also scheduled a hearing later in the week to hear more arguments about the matter.

A voting rights group founded by the Democrat Stacey Abrams had filed an emergency motion on Monday, asking a court to halt the plan.

The motion was filed by Fair Fight Action in US district court, hours before the secretary of state’s office planned to begin the purge of inactive voter registrations.

But the decision by the judge was to allow the action to go ahead after a lawyer for the state assured him that if the judge finds later that some people should not have been removed, they can be easily and quickly reinstated.

In October, the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, released a list of more than 313,000 voters whose registrations were at risk of being canceled, about 4% of registered voters in Georgia. Those voters were mailed notices in November and had 30 days to respond in order to keep their registration intact.

Walter Jones, a spokesman for the secretary of state, said the purge was planned for overnight Monday into Tuesday. He said the exact number and names of voters removed would not be known until then and that more information would be made available later.

Trump: ‘If Comey and Top FBI People Were Dirty Wouldn’t All These Phony Cases Have to Be Overturned?’

Writing on Twitter, President Donald Trump wonders whether one of the results of the damning Inspector General’s report should be that all of the “phony” cases have to be overturned or dismissed. Is he talking about George Papadopoulos and, more importantly, General Mike Flynn?The Federalist reports that

Judge Emmet Sullivan had two choices: He could ignore the growing evidence of government misconduct and wind up the two-year saga that has been the sentencing phase of the Michael Flynn criminal case, or he could say “not on my watch.” Yesterday, in a methodical and seemingly tempered opinion, the long-time federal judge opted for the former tack when he denied in full the comprehensive motion to compel Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed several months ago. Judge Sullivan then set Flynn’s sentencing for January 28, 2020.

This was a remarkable decision because Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the FBI overstepped its authority several times during the Russia collusion investigation. General Flynn was, of course, targeted as part of this investigation. Talk about a “poisoned well…”

Although the judge in the case disagrees, there’s one person with significant power who seems to share my view: President Donald J. Trump. On Twitter, Trump wrote:

So, if Comey & the top people in the FBI were dirty cops and cheated on the FISA Court, wouldn’t all of these phony cases have to be overturned or dismissed? They went after me with the Fake Dossier, paid for by Crooked Hillary & the DNC, which they illegally presented to FISA…

“They want to Impeach me (I’m not worried!),” he went on to say in a follow-up tweet, “and yet they were all breaking the law in so many ways. How can they do that and yet impeach a very successful (Economy Plus) President of the United States, who has done nothing wrong? These people are Crazy!”

The case against Gen. Flynn has always been extremely flimsy. The FBI was so determined to bring him down that they were willing to settle for anything that accomplished that goal, undoubtedly with the end-goal in mind of getting to President Trump himself. That failed eventually, but hey, at least they successfully took out a powerful critic of the (military) intelligence community… who also had the audacity to support Trump. To these dirty FBI agents, that was enough of a win.

So, they set him up and all but forced him into pleading guilty after he was financially ruined — the man lost his house, is bankrupt and will — even if he serves little to no jail time — have a difficult time finding a new job when he returns to society.

Back in April of this year, PJ Media’s own David P. Goldman called on President Trump to pardon Gen. Flynn and…

…and summon him back to Washington. Mueller forced Flynn to plead guilty to an invented charge of lying to FBI agents, even though the FBI agents who interviewed him about Russian contacts said that they thought he was telling the truth. Now that the Mueller investigation has come up with nothing, the frame-up of Gen. Flynn appears all the more heinous. The Deep State feared Mike Flynn, with good reason. Trump should reappoint him to a top job, and really terrify his opponents.

We can now add to this that, with the IG’s report proving serious and serial FBI misconduct in the Russia collusion investigation, the well has been poisoned to such a degree that the case against Gen. Flynn has to be dismissed — if not by Judge Sullivan, then by President Trump. who has all the authority he needs to pardon Flynn and bring the general back into his administration.

Trump is right: “All of these phony cases have to be overturned or dismissed.” But since the judges in those cases aren’t willing to take responsibility for it, it’s time for him to step up to the plate and help the man who meant so much to him early in his presidential campaign.

Obamacare individual mandate ruled illegal

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate runs afoul of the Constitution now that it is no longer a tax.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, remanded the case back to the lower court to evaluate whether other parts of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, can still stand.

“There is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power,” wrote Judge Jennifer Elrod, a Bush appointee. . . .

After facing a number of legal battles, the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in 2012, saying it was a tax under the Constitution’s taxing powers.

But in 2017, as part of the Republican majority’s tax overhaul bill, the penalty for failing to purchase healthcare coverage was changed to zero — leading to the current legal battle over whether the individual mandate can still legally stand as a tax.

SIXTH CIRCUIT HEARS DEBATE OVER LEGALITY OF BUMP STOCKS

CINCINNATI (CN) – A gun rights lobbyist group argued before the Sixth Circuit on Wednesday that rapid-fire gun attachments known as bump stocks should not be included in the government’s definition of machine gun.

Gun Owners of America, called “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington” by former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, sued Attorney General William Barr last year shortly after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives updated the statutory definition of machine gun to include bump stocks.

The device, which gained notoriety following the 2017 shooting of concertgoers in Las Vegas, replaces the standard stock of a rifle and uses a semiautomatic weapon’s recoil to create a back-and-forth sequence that increases the rate of fire to one similar to a fully automatic weapon.

The ATF’s rule allowed owners of bump stocks to dispose of them by March 26, 2019, after which possession of one would become a felony offense.

U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney denied Gun Owners of America’s motion for a preliminary injunction shortly before the disposal deadline. The George W. Bush appointee found the group was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA.

The statutory definition of machine gun includes the phrase “shoots … automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger,” and the lower court ruling hinged on the word “automatically.”

The ATF’s interpretation of the word “automatically” included the action of a shooter putting forward pressure on a bump stock to increase the rate of fire, and Maloney found this a reasonable and permissible interpretation under the APA.

Gun Owners of America argued the ATF’s rule is arbitrary because rubber bands and belt loops can be used to accomplish the same increase in rate of fire, but Maloney was not convinced.

“ATF’s interpretations of the statute,” he wrote, “which extend to devices specifically designed and marketed for the purpose of increasing the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon will not pose a danger of prosecution to individuals who own a semiautomatic weapon and also happen to own pants or elastic office supplies.”

Attorney Rob Olson argued on behalf of Gun Owners of America at Wednesday’s hearing, and told the Sixth Circuit panel that bump stocks do not convert a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun.

Olson laid out a hypothetical scenario in which a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump stock and a fully automatic M-16 rifle were strapped to a table and had their triggers zip-tied. He said that while the M-16 would fire continuously, the AR-15 would fire just a single shot.

The attorney said the device creates a “human compression spring” that allows for an increased rate of fire, but that “the bump stock is simply along for the ride.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, an appointee of President Donald Trump, asked Olson if his client is seeking a nationwide injunction to prevent enforcement of the rule.

The attorney answered that he is, and that such relief is allowed under the APA.

Attorney Brad Hinshelwood from the Department of Justice argued on behalf of the government, saying bump stocks fall under the definition of machine gun because the devices “set up a continuous cycle” of fire once the shooter pulls the trigger.

Murphy spoke at length throughout Hinshelwood’s argument and pressed the attorney about the government’s shifting position on the interpretation of the statutory language found in the National Firearms Act.

Murphy accused the ATF of making mistakes in its interpretation of the Act in the past 10 years, and asked why every AR-15 would not be illegal given that they could be modified to act as fully automatic weapons with bump stocks or other devices.

“The bump stock is the machine gun in terms of the statute,” Hinshelwood responded, pointing out that the government has never thought to include all semiautomatic weapons as machine guns just because they could be modified.

In his rebuttal, Olson urged the panel to issue a nationwide injunction, but said he realizes the relief his client wants won’t be the end of the debate.

“This is something that is going to continue to percolate in the American government,” he told the court.

Both attorneys declined to comment after the hearing.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, and U.S. Circuit Judge Helene White, an appointee of George W. Bush, also sat on the panel.

No timetable has been set for the court’s decision.

 

The FISA Court Wants Answers About the Problems with FBI’s Carter Page Warrants
Judge demands to know what the agency will do prevent future “omissions” in the applications.

Last week, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice found that the FBI omitted relevant information and made a number of mistakes on its warrants submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to wiretap a former aide to Donald Trump. Now the judges of the court are demanding some answers.

In an order filed today and signed by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, the court lays out a brief explanation about why it’s so bad that the FBI left important details out of its warrant request as it sought a wiretap to get more information about Page’s communications with Russian officials to determine whether Trump’s presidential campaign had been somehow been compromised. In short, there are many rules to get permission to use FISC warrants to secretly snoop on Americans on American soil, and each of the 17 problems Inspector General Michael Horowitz found with the warrants represents a breakdown in the system at several points.

“When it is the FBI that seeks to conduct … surveillance, the Federal officer who makes the application is an FBI agent, who swears to the facts in the application,” the report notes. “The FISC judge makes the required probably cause determination ‘on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant.'”

In short, the FISC has to trust that the FBI is including all relevant information in its warrant request and is not leaving out any important details that might factor into the decision. That’s because FISC essentially serves as the only form of oversight over the FBI when it comes to secretly snooping on Americans. Its role is to make sure that the targeted Americans’ rights are protected and that wiretaps aren’t based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment (this is partly why the court was made) and to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of targets. The court depends on the “candor” (a term used several times in the order) of FBI officials in deciding whether to permit surveillance of Americans.

In Page’s case, the report says, “The FBI’s handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the OIG report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above.”

The court is therefore ordering the federal government, by January 10, to provide a sworn written submission of what it has done and what it plans to do to make sure FBI warrant applications to FISC “accurately and completely reflects information possessed by the FBI that is material to any issue presented by the application.”

The court is also ordering a declassification review of an order FISC put out on December 5 demanding more information about the FBI attorney who is accused of altering a document to conceal that Page had a previous relationship as a source with another federal agency regarding contacts with Russian officials. This would be very relevant to the court when considering a request to wiretap him over conversations with these very Russians.

Read the orders for yourself here.

Judge blocks enforcement of LA law that takes aim at NRA

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a Los Angeles law requiring businesses that want city contracts to disclose whether they have ties to the National Rifle Association.

The NRA’s request for a preliminary injunction was granted by U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Los Angeles. It temporarily prohibits enforcement of the measure while the case unfolds. The next step could be an appeal by the city or an NRA request to make the injunction permanent.

The judge also threw out part of the lawsuit on technical grounds and removed the city clerk and Mayor Eric Garcetti as defendants but he refused to entirely dismiss the lawsuit.

US Supreme Court Denies Pennsylvania’s Appeal Regarding Whether Display of a Firearm Constitutes Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity

As our viewers are aware, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince drafted an Amicus Brief in Commonwealth v. Hicks on behalf of Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Firearm Owners Against Crime (“FOAC”) and Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”), resulting in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issuing a monumental decision on May 31, 2019, wherein it held, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that the mere display of a firearm did not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. As the Court explicitly held that its decision was rendered pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 (in addition to the 4th Amendment) and the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn the PA Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Pennsylvania Constitution, it was expected that the case was over.

However, as we previously discussed, on August 16, 2019, the Commonwealth appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can find a copy of the Commonwealth’s Petition for Certiorari here and Mr. Hick’s response here. The Petition and Mr. Hick’s response were considered during the December 6, 2019 conference and on December 9, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth’s request to review the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision; thereby leaving in place the decision by the PA Supreme Court that the mere open carrying or display of a firearm, in and of itself, does not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

If you or someone you know has had their constitutional rights violated by merely openly possessing a firearm, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

New York Loses Its Climate-Crusading Suit Against ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil won a first-of-its-kind climate change fraud trial on Tuesday as a judge rejected the state of New York’s claim that the oil and gas giant misled investors in accounting for the financial risks of global warming.

New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager said the state failed to prove that Exxon violated the Martin Act, a broad state law that does not require proof of intent of shareholder fraud.

“The office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Ostrager wrote in a 55-page ruling, deciding the case without a jury.

What About the FISA Court?

Ever since this dog-and-pony show culminating in today’s articles of impeachment got started, something has been on my mind.

It’s clear the FBI is corrupt at the upper most levels. Chief Weasel Jim Comey, and the dishonor roll of his underlings: McCabe, Strzok, Page, and lots more are all partisan hacks. We know this. We know they used the absolutely bogus Steele dossier to justify the need to monitor American citizens to the FISA courts (overview). Borepatch started the day with post that it’s time to Disband the FBI. Count me on board with that. While, from all I know, the majority of the agents and lower level staff are still honorable, there’s a saying in management classes (I originally heard it was taken from the mafia) that goes, “the fish rots from the head down.” If there are systemic problems in an organization, the problem lies in the top management’s offices.

What I’ve been saying since this whole mess started is “what about the FISA courts?” In my mind, if they were honest and honorable, they’d bust the FBI like 13 year olds pretending to be college students at spring break in south Florida.* I’d very publicly and loudly tell the FBI, “you’ve proven you’re not trustworthy. Because of that, from now on there will be no warrants issued to you unless you bring 10 times the amount of justification we used to require, and you’d better have far more than one source. You will be questioned about it relentlessly, and you’d better damned well have every last detail documented.” Or something similar. Let everybody know the FBI is getting their chops busted for their partisan politics.

The fact that this hasn’t happened doesn’t mean the FISA courts didn’t slap down the FBI in some classified meetings that we’re not allowed to know about. The fact that it wasn’t public, though, implies that the FISA court is just as rotten as the heads of the FBI fish. They could have dressed them down in secret but made a public statement about how shocked – shocked! I tell you – and how appalled the court is at having been lied to by the FBI. The fact that didn’t happen tells you the FISA court needs to be disbanded, just like the FBI. The whole Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act needs to be torn up and started again from blank paper.

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Kentucky Abortion Ultrasound Law

I’m a bit surprised. It only takes 4 justices to decide to hear a case and there are 4 definitely proabortion proggie justices on the court. I’ll bet they figured to cut bait due to the possibility that there were 5 justices that just might take the opportunity to gut Roe v Wade some more.

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal to the Kentucky Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, which requires “doctors to perform ultrasounds and show and describe fetal images to patients before abortions, as well as play an audible heartbeat of the fetus.”

Their decision means the law will stay in place.

The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville, KY, which is the state’s last abortion clinic.

The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law:

“As a First Amendment matter, there is nothing suspect with a State’s requiring a doctor, before performing an abortion, to make truthful, non-misleading factual disclosures, relevant to informed consent, even if those disclosures relate to unborn life and have the effect of persuading the patient not to have an abortion,” the appeals court held in its ruling.

Movement in the Federal Courts Regarding RKBA

Monday, the Supreme Court heard its FIRST major gun rights case in nearly a decade [brought by NRA & NYSRPA] — in which GOA submitted an amicus brief challenging New York City’s near-prohibition on possessing or transporting handguns.

Regarding the Supreme Court case, our brief argued that New York City limits the right to keep arms only to certain Americans who meet requirements set by the city.

These American citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to own a firearm are subjected to invasive government screening, arbitrary waiting periods, and substantial fees.

The few Americans who qualify cannot “bear arms” in the true sense of the phrase as recognized in Heller.

Instead, they can only “keep” arms in their home or place of business. And when carrying a handgun to an approved shooting range, honest citizens have to keep their handgun unloaded and locked away, rendering the firearm totally useless for self-defense.

We are using the PLAIN TEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT to argue against these vicious assaults on innocent Americans’ rights.

As stated in our brief, no reasonable person could possibly argue that the people of New York City are free to exercise their God-given rights outlined in the Second Amendment.

But Monday’s Supreme Court hearing was only the beginning.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will next hear a case of ours on December 11 which challenges the federal bump stock ban as well as the dangerous precedent of allowing unelected bureaucrats to ban an item that had been completely legal for years.

The federal ban on bump stocks also has dangerous consequences for other firearms including AR-15s and other modern sporting rifles.

If a bump stock can turn an AR-15 into a machine gun, then ANYTHING can — even a rubber band or a belt loop.

This is why Gun Owners of America proudly holds a NO COMPROMISE stance on the Second Amendment because we know that when the anti-gunners are given even one inch, they come back for a foot.

But now more than ever before, we need your help as we go up against the anti-gunners and their army of swamp lawyers to defend Americans living behind enemy lines who simply want to exercise their God-given rights as outlined in the Second Amendment.

So please, make a tax-deductible contribution to the Gun Owners Foundation’s Legal Defense Fund to help offset the massive costs we will incur to fight the anti-gun lobby — and it will be MATCHED by a generous donor committed to saving the Second Amendment.

In Liberty,

Erich Pratt
Senior Vice President
Gun Owners Foundation

 

NYC Lawyer Admits to SCOTUS Gun Regulation Had No Impact on Safety

The lawyer defending New York City in a Second Amendment case on Monday admitted to the Supreme Court that the city’s gun restrictions had no impact on public safety and that gun rights extend beyond the home.

During oral arguments for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City, city attorney Richard Dearing told Justice Samuel Alito that a city regulation governing where gun owners could carry their firearms did not make residents safer. He said New York police determined “The rule could be repealed without a negative impact on public safety” before the state rolled it back. He went on to concede that the Second Amendment applies beyond the home, a core question at issue in the case.

“What I’m conceding is that, in the case of a premises license, the Second Amendment has something to say about what effective possession in the home means,” Dearing told Alito during oral arguments. “And sometimes that may mean … that a license holder needs to be able to undertake certain activities outside the home.”
David Rutz breaks down the most important news about the enemies of freedom, here and around the world, in this comprehensive morning newsletter.

The comments from Dearing may weigh on how the case concludes. If the Court does not declare the case moot, as it still might, it could rule that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms outside the home. Such a decision would be a significant follow-up to the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case that paved the way for Second Amendment challenges at the Supreme Court. A ruling in the New York case could also have a significant impact on gun-transportation and gun-carry laws across the country.

Much of the discussion during Tuesday’s oral arguments focused on whether the case was now invalidated because the regulation in question had been mostly undone. New York state rolled back the regulation after SCOTUS accepted the case, leading gun-control activists to express fear of the effects of a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor. New York City argued Tuesday that the case should be dismissed, while plaintiffs argued the change was designed to undermine the case and did not provide a full legal remedy.

The debate centered on plaintiffs’ ability to recoup damages, and on whether traveling gun owners who stop “for a cup of coffee” or “to visit your mother” would be subject to prosecution under the revised gun-transportation law. While Dearing assured the justices that the city would instruct police not to arrest such individuals, he was less clear about what constituted a “reasonably necessary” stop while transporting guns. After Justices Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts pressed him, Dearing retorted that the question was beyond the case’s scope.

The Court had an opportunity to void the case in the immediate aftermath of the regulation being undone, but decided to hear full arguments instead.

The justices will vote this week on how to proceed with the case, but a public announcement of their decision is likely weeks, or even months, away.

‘Cautious Optimism’ After SCOTUS Hears Arguments In NY Gun Control Case

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today expressed high hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court will “step up to the plate” and expand further on the right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment in the case of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York.

SAF Board member and syndicated broadcaster Tom Gresham was in the audience and he noted afterwards, “This may be the case that indicates whether the court considers the Second Amendment to be a legitimate right on the same level as the First Amendment.”

Gresham suggested that if the high court decides to reject the case, it will do so shortly. However, if the Court decides to rule in the case, that decision could be as far away as June, on the final day of the current session. The case is a challenge of a now-changed city regulation that forbade handgun owners from taking their guns outside the city limits.

“It has been ten years since the Supreme Court took a Second Amendment case, and this one could have far-reaching ramifications,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The last time the court ruled on the Second Amendment was in 2010 with McDonald v. City of Chicago, our landmark victory that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.

“We’re hopeful the High Court sees through New York’s attempt to moot this case by changing the law,” he continued. “The only reason that change was made is because the Court accepted the case for review earlier this year, and everybody knows it. That maneuver suggests the city knew all along its restriction would not pass constitutional muster, but only changed the law in an effort to prevent a court ruling that smacked it down.

“We will be watching this case closely,” Gottlieb said. “The City of New York, and any other government body for that matter, should not be allowed to trample on a constitutional right and then change a law at the last minute to avoid being penalized for their demagoguery.”