{"id":100134,"date":"2024-02-17T14:59:02","date_gmt":"2024-02-17T20:59:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=100134"},"modified":"2024-02-17T14:59:02","modified_gmt":"2024-02-17T20:59:02","slug":"100134","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=100134","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

UNCONSTITUTIONAL<\/a>
\nWHY THIS WORD IS SHOWING UP MORE IN COURT RULINGS<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Just before I sat down to write this week\u2019s installment, a federal district judge in central Florida handed down a\u00a042-page ruling<\/a>, posted online by Reuters, which declared the long-running ban on carrying firearms inside post offices is a Second Amendment violation.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Donald Trump appointee (see, elections do matter!) put it bluntly, which seems to be a hallmark among conservative judges now unraveling a lot of truly egregious legislation and regulations adopted over the years that have restricted your rights. Here\u2019s part of what she said:<\/p>\n

\u201cFirst, nothing in Supreme Court dicta establishes that the United States may ban firearms in all government buildings. Second, the scope of the Second Amendment right is a legal question, not a factual one, and I need not hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve it. Instead, the government bears the burden to identify historical evidence supporting its challenged regulation. Finally, I explain why the United States errs in arguing that its proprietorship of federal land and buildings excludes vast swathes of the country from the protection of the Second Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Elsewhere, Judge Mizelle observed, \u201cPossessing a firearm in a federal facility is an activity that falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment \u2026 Thus, the United States must show that a ban on firearms in ordinary post offices is consistent with our nation\u2019s founding-era tradition of firearms regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course, the ruling will be appealed, probably before you read this. But it is now on the record that one more federal restriction on the right to bear arms has been ruled unconstitutional by yet another judge.<\/p>\n

California\u2019s long-standing ban on so-called \u201cassault rifles\u201d and \u201chigh-capacity<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

magazines\u201d has been ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

This isn\u2019t new, but it is interesting and, in some ways, entertaining. Out in San Diego, California, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez has made something of a habit declaring Golden State gun control laws unconstitutional. He\u2019s done it with the state\u2019s ban on so-called \u201clarge-capacity magazines\u201d and so-called \u201cassault weapons.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Benitez has gotten so far under Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s thin skin that the governor has attacked him personally. When Benitez struck down the magazine ban, Newsom posted a rant on his official website\u00a0calling the judge<\/a>\u00a0an \u201cidealogue.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Benitez last fall ruled the state\u2019s decades-old \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban is\u00a0unconstitutional<\/a>. California lawmakers were an unhappy lot.<\/p>\n

When Judge Cormac Carney more recently struck down the California \u201csensitive places\u201d gun ban, calling it \u201crepugnant\u201d to the Second Amendment, Newsom issued a statement to the California media.<\/p>\n

\u201cDefying common sense, this ruling outrageously calls California\u2019s data-backed gun safety efforts \u2018repugnant,\u2019\u201d Newsom told the\u00a0Los Angeles Times<\/a>. \u201cWhat is repugnant is this ruling, which greenlights the proliferation of guns in our hospitals, libraries, and children\u2019s playgrounds \u2014 spaces which should be safe for all.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Carney\u2019s decision was a\u00a0big win<\/a>\u00a0for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and California Rifle & Pistol Association, and their partners in the federal lawsuit challenging the \u201csensitive places\u201d law.<\/p>\n

Judges Benitez and Carney are both George W. Bush appointees.<\/p>\n

West Virginia Ruling<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

Back in December, U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh with the Northern District of West Virginia\u00a0declared<\/a>\u00a0a federal law prohibiting handgun sales to 18-20-year-olds is \u201cfacially unconstitutional.\u201d He granted a summary judgment in another case brought by SAF, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.<\/p>\n

Another District Court judge, in West Virginia, has ruled that the federal<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

law prohibiting handgun sales to young adults is \u201cfacially unconstitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

In his\u00a040-page decision<\/a>, Judge Kleeh wrote, \u201c(B)ecause Plaintiffs\u2019 conduct \u2013 the purchase of handguns \u2013 \u2018fall[s] [within] the Second Amendment\u2019s \u2018unqualified command\u2019 and the challenged statutes and regulations are not \u2018consistent with the Nation\u2019s historic tradition of firearm regulation,\u2019 the Court FINDS 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) facially unconstitutional and as applied to Plaintiffs.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Kleeh is a Donald Trump appointee.<\/p>\n

So, What\u2019s Going On?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

Much of this drama can be attributed to language in the Supreme Court\u2019s June 2022 ruling in\u00a0New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/a>. In that decision, authored for the majority by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court set down new guidelines for deciding Second Amendment cases.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, official portrait, public domain.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

This excerpt from the Thomas opinion probably sums it up: \u201cIn keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment\u2019s plain text covers an individual\u2019s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation\u2019s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual\u2019s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment\u2019s \u2018unqualified command.\u2019\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Long story short: From now on, gun control laws must be considered for their historical relevancy; that is, challenged laws must demonstrate some analogous connection to laws in place at the time the Constitution was ratified.<\/p>\n

While some liberal judges remain resistant to the new guidelines, other judges are looking at modern gun restrictions from a different perspective, and they are finding those laws wanting. Decades of restrictive gun control had been accepted until gun rights organizations began challenging them on straight constitutional grounds.<\/p>\n

Put simply, the Constitution \u2014 and particularly the Bill of Rights \u2014 is a legal document which has been ignored for too long by too many lawmakers who don\u2019t like guns or the people who own them. But the worm has turned, and one factor is the person in the Oval Office who makes the federal judicial nominations. I repeat: Elections matter, and if you like federal judges handing down rulings that uphold the Second Amendment, you need to vote.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

By the (Embarrassing) Numbers<\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

The establishment media recently had a problem on its hands, which many evidently felt they just couldn\u2019t report because some data from a long-favored source went against the \u201cnarrative.\u201d<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Gun Violence Archive<\/a>\u00a0reported how homicides declined in 2023 (18,906) from the number in 2022 (20,396), and suicides likewise declined from 27,038 to 24,090. This happened in the same year when so-called \u201cconstitutional carry\u201d (permitless carry) became the law in a majority (27) of states. People can carry firearms for personal protection without a license or permit.<\/p>\n

Anti-gunners had predicted all manner of mayhem in an effort to prevent these laws from being passed.\u00a0Northeastern Global News<\/a>\u00a0said homicides declined by an estimated 12% overall.<\/p>\n

Then along comes Ohio, where a study conducted for the Attorney General\u2019s office and Bowling Green University revealed that in the year since the Buckeye State adopted \u201cconstitutional carry,\u201d violent gun-related crime declined in six of eight cities examined by the study. Again, the data didn\u2019t match the narrative, and it was only an Op-Ed in\u00a0National Review<\/a>\u00a0by Attorney General Dave Yost which brought this report to the public\u2019s attention.<\/p>\n

There are some important points revealed by the Ohio study:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Most cities\u2019 crime rates decreased after the PCL (Permitless Carry Law) was enacted. Unlike the other six cities, rates in Dayton and Cincinnati increased slightly, however.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Toledo, Parma, and Akron each experienced an average of 19% decrease in summed rates of crimes involving a firearm post-PCL.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Based on data from June 2021 to June 2023, the enactment of the PCL does not appear to have any appreciable effect on law enforcement injuries or deaths by firearm in the cities of interest.<\/p>\n

After reviewing the data, Alan Gottlieb with the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms\u00a0commented<\/a>, \u201cLo-and-behold, the numbers don\u2019t support the narrative. You can bet if they did, the gun ban crowd would be crowing, but instead, it appears they may be eating crow.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHY THIS WORD IS SHOWING UP MORE IN COURT RULINGS Just before I sat down to write this week\u2019s installment, a federal district judge in central Florida handed down a\u00a042-page ruling, posted online by Reuters, which declared the long-running ban on carrying firearms inside post offices is a Second Amendment violation. U.S. District Judge … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=100134"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100134\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":100135,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100134\/revisions\/100135"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=100134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=100134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=100134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}