Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned [Archive] - Page 8

View Full Version : Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]

GratefulCitizen

04-28-2023, 16:40

Illinois assault weapon and magazine ban enjoined:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369.43.0.pdf

GratefulCitizen

05-08-2023, 15:09

The Illinois awb was enjoined, the injunction was stayed, an emergency appeal went to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS requested a response from Illinois.
The response looks like an attempt at burden-shifting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A948/266284/20230508085805151_Bevis%20-%20Response%20to%20Motion%20IPA%20USSC%20Final%20f or%20Filing.pdf

bblhead672

05-08-2023, 15:47

Badger52

05-17-2023, 03:45

An article covering this at The Captain's Journal (https://www.captainsjournal.com/2023/05/16/gun-rights-advocates-win-major-challenge-to-n-j-s-tough-concealed-carry-law/), including embedded video.

A new law limiting concealed carry of guns in New Jersey suffered another defeat in federal court Tuesday as a judge ordered state officials not to enforce its tight restrictions pending a flurry of legal challenges from gun rights advocates.

The ruling means New Jerseyans with proper permits are free to concealed-carry handguns at beaches, public parks, bars and restaurants — places from where Gov. Phil Murphy and his Democratic allies in the state Legislature sought to ban firearms in an effort to curb gun violence.

Badger52

05-25-2023, 13:11

Not specifically to a gun case but important dikta from SCOTUS.

Another one, this time also with the EPA (shock, eh?) that is peeling back the notion that Exec Branch Fed agencies can lord over the People by fiat and whim. (West Virginia v. EPA was the previous good one.) Let's see if the black-robed Druids continue to apply this overreach doctrine to several other things that are coming before the Court.

FWIW, the EPA's notion, struck down, of "significant nexus allowed them to determine "waters of the United States" because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake."

Full story here if you like. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-delivers-blow-key-biden-environmental-policy-unanimous-ruling)

:cool:

Box

05-26-2023, 07:09

The law doesn't matter because liberals will just ignore it - because they already have a legion of compromised DA's that wont prosecute them for their crimes

The law doesn't matter because liberals will just pass laws at the local level that will allow them to exploit loop holes.

The law doesn't matter because they will just threaten intimidate, and coerce people into compliance through fear of being blamed for a riot.

...and the republicans in government will continue to do what they always do - nothing

Like General McAllister once told Detective Sergeant Murtaugh, "It's over; there's no heroes left in the world"

Badger52

05-26-2023, 18:08

Like General McAllister once told Detective Sergeant Murtaugh, "It's over; there's no heroes left in the world"McAllister was wrong, even if the plot premise was interesting.

GratefulCitizen

06-07-2023, 09:59

3rd circuit opinion:
Non-violent felons retain 2nd Amendment rights.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212835pen.pdf

GratefulCitizen

06-19-2023, 19:52

Second Amendment argument from an interested attorney.
“What part of ‘In common use’ don’t you understand?”

https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=0071230720131001240151211071131200 69029073072014083066027080066092082014092094097024 04304201305803802604507701710600709910010500601602 30010600660900711050180880291130230590780901110761 26003077025113082072066031026006108110084091027073 093026014024082090&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

GratefulCitizen

07-01-2023, 21:02

Badger52

07-02-2023, 03:56

The wins keep stacking.
ATF final rule classifying 80% lowers as firearms struck down in summary judgement:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.366145/gov.uscourts.txnd.366145.227.0.pdfThey seem to be on a roll of getting people to get rid of stuff for a time, knowing that the overreach is going to be struck down. But any peasant disarmed is a win for them.

mark46th

07-02-2023, 08:38

To the demlibs, the process is the punishment if they have no legal grounds to stand on...

Stobey

07-24-2023, 18:41

This article cites a new "amendment" being proposed to the current NDAA, by a lefty gun-grabber from Connecticut: U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D). From the article:

"His long-standing track record in advocating for gun control is well-known. Throughout his career, he has sought to abolish the Second Amendment and bankrupt the lawful firearm industry, earning praises and pats on the back from his fellow gun grabbers, both inside and outside of Congress.

However, now he is targeting military gun owners, a move that seems ill advised given that, if it came down to it, the people he’s trying to disarm are the people he would be depending on to use weapons to keep him alive.

Sen. Murphy’s amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the critical legislation that outlines expenditures for the Department of Defense (DOD) for fiscal year 2024, seeks to impose tighter restrictions on our servicemen and women. The NDAA attracts thousands of amendments every year, but most of them never make it to debate as they are deemed irrelevant or unrelated to defense matters.

From a distance, Murphy’s proposal appears harmless, merely asking the secretary of defense to establish baseline training standards for individuals carrying firearms on duty. These standards encompass marksmanship training, suicide awareness, and safe storage — all of which are already established norms across our armed forces.

Under closer inspection, however, Sen. Murphy’s proposal is obviously taking a hard left turn off the constitutional path. His plan mandates that individuals employed by the Pentagon undergo training before purchasing a firearm for private use. Additionally, anyone possessing a firearm on a military installation would be required to register it with the base commander, along with keeping the firearm locked at home and storing ammunition separately.
...
The core concern lies in the legislation’s attempt to dictate the storage of firearms, contradicting the principles upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision in D.C. v. Heller. Notably, the court ruled that Washington, D.C., couldn’t ban handguns and, germane to the Murphy amendment, couldn’t dictate how firearms are stored in one’s home.

However, there are broader issues at play. The proposed amendment goes so far as to mandate the registration of all privately owned firearms with base authorities, even those legally acquired off-base and never taken onto the military installation. :eek:
...
This should raise insuperable constitutional concerns, however. While a base commander holds authority to establish regulations within the confines of the base, their jurisdiction ends at the installation’s front gate.

Without putting too fine a point on it, Sen. Murphy’s proposal would create a national firearm registry, starting with the inclusion of all gun owners within the military, irrespective of whether they purchased the firearm on base or ever brought it onto the installation. This approach displays a disrespectful degree of federal overreach by leaving law-abiding gun owners subject to unnecessary bureaucratic scrutiny.
...
Murphy’s amendment would grant the secretary of defense the power to collect information on both military and civilian employees of the Department of Defense regarding their lawfully owned firearms or ammunition. The stated purpose is for “injury and mortality prevention,” but there’s no such exemption included in the Second Amendment’s explicit prohibition on the government’s authority to infringe on the people’s natural right to keep and bear arms.

https://thenewamerican.com/ndaa-amendment-would-require-service-members-to-register-privately-owned-weapons-with-the-pentagon/

Badger52

07-24-2023, 19:56

Additionally, anyone possessing a firearm on a military installation would be required to register it with the base commander, along with keeping the firearm locked at home and storing ammunition separately.
...

However, there are broader issues at play. The proposed amendment goes so far as to mandate the registration of all privately owned firearms with base authorities, even those legally acquired off-base and never taken onto the military installation. :eek:
...

Depending upon how aggressively a particular Garrison CO (or the PMO or Dir DES) pursues it, this is already codified in Physical Security regulations. Some places will even mandate registration for firearms brought on base temporarily by civilians not stationed there just to use an MWR range. (When I was in & single, my stuff got stored in the arms room.) Murphy is a communist and I hope the additional words - any of them - are stripped out of the NDAA.

MR2

08-09-2023, 12:28

I’m for gun control - DISARM THE GOVERNMENT! - CA

MR2

08-10-2023, 07:37

Federal firearm prohibition against possession of firearms by drug users ruled unconstitutional by Federal Appeals Court, Fifth Circuit

Ruling link:
USA vs. Patrick Darnell Daniels, Jr.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.210916/gov.uscourts.ca5.210916.137.1.pdf

h/t Guns n Gadgets Second Amendment News. https://youtu.be/1YkxpDibISk

MR2

08-10-2023, 08:06

Ninety-One Page Opinion…
Expect an appeal to the Ninth Circuit…

BIG 2A WIN IN HAWAII: Obama-appointed Federal Judge Knocks Out Much of Hawaii’s “Gun Free Zone” ban.
The Four Boxes Diner | Properly Applied Guidance from the Bruen decision…

U.S. District Court Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi entered a temporary restraining order enjoining many aspects of Hawaii’s recently-enacted Government-mandated gun free zone (Sensitive Places) law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfBcpiUm4kQ

bblhead672

08-10-2023, 09:37

Courts keep upholding 2A based up Bruen. Biden admin just keeps issuing new infringements.

Badger52

08-11-2023, 05:09

GratefulCitizen

09-17-2023, 13:34

The ninth circuit sets a new standard for granting preliminary injunctions for 2nd Amendment cases:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/09/07/23-15016.pdf

This will have a big impact because delaying tactics will be ineffective if gun control laws are enjoined during the appeals process.

Badger52

09-18-2023, 04:46

Yessir, district court heads explode. The heart of the matter:
...in cases involving a constitutional claim, a likelihood of success on the
merits usually establishes irreparable harm, and strongly tips the balance of equities and public interest in favor of granting a preliminary injunction.

Their repetitive pounding of the concept that denial of a constitutional right, however brief, constitutes irreparable harm is good. That the fight shouldn't have to be fought is obvious, but I remember when the 9th Circuit was "Do not pass Go. Proceed straight to Gulag."

Badger52

09-22-2023, 18:59

California's 'High Capacity' Magazine Ban Ruled Unconstitutional Under Bruen

Today, Judge Benitez has, as expected, struck down the ban as clearly unconstitutional.
Here's the link to the decision (https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-09-22-Decision-Signed-by-Judge-R.-Benitez2263869.1.pdf). I happen to enjoy the BLUF approach of the Court, which states what is happening, literally "up front."

We begin at the end. California’s ban and mandatory dispossession of firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds (California Penal Code § 32310(c) and (d)), as amended by Proposition 63, was preliminarily enjoined in 2017.1 That decision was affirmed on appeal.2 In 2019, summary judgment was granted in favor of Plaintiffs and § 32310 in its entirety was judged to be unconstitutional.3

Initially, that decision was also affirmed on appeal.4 However, the decision was re-heard and reversed by the court of appeals en banc.5 In 2022, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the appellate en banc decision, and remanded the case.6 The court of appeals, in turn, remanded the case to this Court “for further proceedings consistent with New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).”7 All relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the prior decision concluding § 32310 is unconstitutional are incorporated herein.

This is not the first time Justice Benitez has done liberty proud. So hand salute, and 3-fingers of something of his choosing.
:lifter

Paslode

09-23-2023, 17:01

GratefulCitizen

09-24-2023, 11:02

Now we'll get to see how Kali's new 11% Tax on guns and ammo holds up in court. It doesn't do into effect until July 1.2024 which is perfectly timed as the 2024 election will be getting hot and will give Newsome some talking points while he is on the campaign trail.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/anti-gun-california-lawmakers-approve-new-tax-guns-ammo

This could be a good opportunity to test Murdock v. Pennsylvania for the 2nd Amendment.
A win would lay the groundwork for eliminating the NFA.

Badger52

09-24-2023, 15:05

This could be a good opportunity to test Murdock v. Pennsylvania for the 2nd Amendment.
A win would lay the groundwork for eliminating the NFA.+1 Also, I remember that 11% as being the number in Germany for their Mehrwertsteuer. How appropriate.

Box

09-26-2023, 09:28

I just think its hilarious that some of you folks actually think "law" has any thing whatsoever to do with this.

...or that the left has any intention of following a "law" that increases the amount of freedoms and liberties (aka privileges) bestowed upon those peasants subject to the decrees of King Brandon

Paslode

09-26-2023, 14:05

Badger52

09-26-2023, 17:43

My mother has always said that with each new law you lose a little bit more freedom.I like Heinlein's method:
Bi-cameral legislature. One body requires 2/3 to pass ANYthing. If it can't get that support, it's not needed. Second body is to review the first. If even 1/3 don't like the law, it's shit-canned forthwith.

GratefulCitizen

10-08-2023, 13:43

ATF enjoined from enforcing machine gun laws against FRTs.
For now, FRTs are legal, and will likely remain legal unless Congress intervenes.

https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/gov.uscourts.txnd_.380076.53.0.pdf

Box

10-10-2023, 08:56

Just to keep everything in perspective - the "Gun Control Act of 1986" was not signed by a democrat.
The gun ban in the 90's could NOT have passed without signification republican participation.
The "re-imagining" of gun laws by the ATF from 2016 through 2020 did NOT happen without tacit support of the republican party.
This last little bit a bullshit "anti-crime" legislation couldn't have gotten through without signification republican support.

Unconstitutional gun control and the deteriorating civil liberties is one of the only bipartisan efforts we have in government.
Just like the war mongering democrats love to blame endless wars on the right, gun snatching republicans go to great lengths to blame all gun control on the right.

The 2d amendment to the bill of government approved privileges is cute but I believe it was the 46th POTUS that once said...

No rights are absolute.

But dont worry - eventually Bill Clinton'S wife will have all of you gun nuts rounded up and thrown in the same re-education camps as those deplorable Trump supporters.

Lets finish the job - reelect Brandon in 2028.

JimP

10-11-2023, 04:13

"But dont worry - eventually Bill Clinton'S wife will have all of you gun nuts rounded up and thrown in the same re-education camps as those deplorable Trump supporters."

Yeah....not so much. Here's one gun nut that's not going to get on that train. I have a gun. They don't want me to have that gun. I refuse to give up my gun. Their move......

Phuc, they wanted to put us in camps for refusing an experimental "vaccine." This isn't too much of a jump. I'm perfectly OK going out defending the Constitution rather than dying in some nursing home and being used for "old people fights for the last of the Tapioca" on Thursday nights.

In fact, I'd MUCH rather go out that way.

GratefulCitizen

10-11-2023, 09:01

bblhead672

10-11-2023, 09:26

Just to keep everything in perspective - the "Gun Control Act of 1986" was not signed by a democrat.

And it was endorsed by the NRA....Negotiated Rights Away.

Badger52

10-20-2023, 04:16

LINK HERE (https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1697737480/2023.10.19_175_OPINION.pdf?1697737480) to the District Court Decision telling CA that their AR-15 ban is unconstitutional, although it gives the Kali Regime ten days to appeal.

Interesting read and Judge Benitez tends to use quite a bit of normal people language in his decisions.
:cool:

Box

10-20-2023, 06:29

Just a show of hands...

How many people think that the left gives two shits about a legal ruling that says their policies and legislation is unconstitutional?

The democratic peoples republic still lets you have an AR-15
it just has to have the bayonet lug removed
no barrel threads
no pistol grip
a stock that looks like it was made with a taffy puller
a magazine button
a magic bolt that micro-stamps a brief bio about your family history on the bottom of every shell casing fired from the gun
special taggants in the gun powder that identify the pronouns of everyone in the guns chain of custody
special administrative measures to make sure only the best citizens are purchasing firearms
special adherence to "common sense gun laws"
...for the children

hahahaha
"constitutional"
stop it - your words are tickling me

"The Second Amendment is not absolute"
- Joseph Robinette Biden

Badger52

10-31-2023, 09:37

BLUF: US District Court had, multiple times, extended the stay against the ATF's rule on pistol braces. Each one had a sunset in the form of a drop-dead date for the ATF to respond. They haven't so now he's extended it pending full resolution, or a higher overarching ruling.

Link for reference (https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/10/30/federal-judge-extends-preliminary-injunction-atf-pistol-brace-rule/).
:rolleyes:

The preliminary injunction issued Friday by Judge Tipton means the ATF cannot enforce the pistol brace rule against members of Gun Owners of America. GOA are a party/plaintiff in the original lawsuit.

Box

10-31-2023, 09:50

The preliminary injunction issued Friday by Judge Tipton means the ATF cannot enforce the pistol brace rule against members of Gun Owners of America.

Great News !!!

But for the rest of American citizens that aren't members of the GOA or those that didn't join GOA until after GOA filed the law suit...
...you are cordially invited to continue eating your peas until your second amendment privileges have been re-granted since the judge thinks "the pistol-brace ban is likely unconstitutional"

Badger52

10-31-2023, 14:23

Great News !!!

But for the rest of American citizens that aren't members of the GOA or those that didn't join GOA until after GOA filed the law suit...
...you are cordially invited to continue eating your peas until your second amendment privileges have been re-granted since the judge thinks "the pistol-brace ban is likely unconstitutional"No dispute, just baby steps. I hope the Dems keep investigating SCOTUS for those fishing trips and sleep-overs; that should soften their hearts.

Badger52

11-03-2023, 18:02

They granted cert to hear the Garland v. Cargill bumpstock petition.

There's also an amicus brief from the NRA added to their current petition to be heard by SCOTUS, over NY Dept of Fin Services coercing people not to do business with the NRA, as a 1st Amendment issue. (Think entities continuing on with the great idea of Opn CHOKE POINT.) They're granting only as to the first petition question. Here's the intro to the petition:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Bantam Books v. Sullivan held that a state com-
mission with no formal regulatory power violated the
First Amendment when it “deliberately set out to
achieve the suppression of publications” through “in-
formal sanctions,” including the “threat of invoking le-
gal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion,
and intimidation.” 372 U.S. 58, 66-67 (1963). Respond-
ent here, wielding enormous regulatory power as the
head of New York’s Department of Financial Services
(“DFS”), applied similar pressure tactics—including
backchannel threats, ominous guidance letters, and se-
lective enforcement of regulatory infractions—to in-
duce banks and insurance companies to avoid doing
business with Petitioner, a gun rights advocacy group.
App. 199-200 ¶ 21. Respondent targeted Petitioner
explicitly based on its Second Amendment advocacy,
which DFS’s official regulatory guidance deemed a
“reputational risk” to any financial institution serving
the NRA. Id. at 199, n.16. The Second Circuit held such
conduct permissible as a matter of law, reasoning that
“this age of enhanced corporate social responsibility”
justifies regulatory concern about “general backlash”
against a customer’s political speech. Id. at 29-30. Ac-
cordingly, the questions presented are:

1. Does the First Amendment allow a govern-
ment regulator to threaten regulated entities with
adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a
controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the
government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint
or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the
speaker’s advocacy?

2. Does such coercion violate a clearly estab-
lished First Amendment right?

Now go eat your peas. :munchin

Badger52

11-09-2023, 10:57

bblhead672

11-10-2023, 08:26

LINK here, including text of the decision. (https://www.ammoland.com/2023/11/federal-judge-stays-entire-atf-pistol-brace-rule/#axzz8IaP744sm)The stay appears to not just apply to GOA members & other original plaintiffs. Judge Kacsmaryk strings words together pretty good.

Judge should rule that the ATF is un-Constitutional and order it dissolved.

Yes, I live on Fantasy Island. Look the plane! :D

GratefulCitizen

11-13-2023, 14:57

ATF can’t redefine terms to effectively legislate as an executive branch agency.
Here’s the smack down from the 5th Circuit:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-10718-CV0.pdf

Badger52

12-02-2023, 06:19

On Friday, Judge Thomas S. Kleeh issued a decision striking down the federal prohibition against 18 to 20-year-olds purchasing handguns.

The plaintiffs in the case are Steven Robert Brown, Benjamin Weekley, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the West Virginia Citizens Defense League.

Judge Kleeh, a Donald Trump appointee, is Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
Kleeh noted that the plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the statute while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Attorney General Merrick Garland, and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach sought to have the case dismissed.

He sided with the plaintiffs and quoted extensively from Bruen (2022) to show the manner at which he arrived at his decision.

Here is one of Kleeh’s quotes from the Bruen decision:

To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest…To demonstrate the regulation of that conduct is within the bounds of the Second Amendment, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

LINK at Breitbart here. (https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/12/01/judge-strikes-down-federal-ban-handgun-sales-18-20-year-olds/)

Badger52

07-23-2024, 14:58

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has handed down a major ruling in Worth v. Jacobson in favor of the Second Amendment. The opinion by Judge Duane Benton upholds a lower court in striking down a Minnesota law limiting gun permits for persons 21 years old. It is a question that could find its way to the Supreme Court once splits among the circuits develop.

As noted by scholars such as Stephen Halbrook, it is also the first appellate court to rely on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rahimi, which gun rights advocates argued might be a break in the dam of Second Amendment protections. That dubious claim is even less compelling after reading this opinion.

Minnesota has joined states like New York and Illinois in advancing weak arguments to the benefit of gun rights advocates. It argued that, since the Founding, states have restricted guns in the hands of “irresponsible or dangerous groups, such as 18 to 20-year-olds.” That proposition was left virtually unsupported as was the suggestion that 18 to 20-year-olds are a public danger.

Moreover, the court ruled that it would not matter:

“Minnesota states that from the founding, states have had the power to regulate guns in the hands of irresponsible or dangerous groups, such as 18 to 20year-olds. At the step one ‘plain text’ analysis, a claim that a group is ‘irresponsible’ or ‘dangerous’ does not remove them from the definition of the people.”

Assessment of this ruling in favor of 18-20yo gun ownership in MN can be found in the full article here (https://jonathanturley.org/2024/07/23/worth-reading-the-eight-circuit-finds-bar-on-18-20-years-old-violates-the-second-amendment/).
The case is Worth v. Jacobson

JimP

07-24-2024, 03:51

Badger52

07-24-2024, 06:18

Texas allows concealed carry for 18 and up. My daughter is 19 and has her permit. Unfortunately, she could not take her heater cross-country for lack of reciprocity. At least in Texas she has some protection.This kind of stuff is infurating. Funny-not-funny part about here is that it's 21 to apply for a CC permission card, but we've always had open-carry which can be done at 18 since there isn't a specific age for possessing (vs. purchasing). Glad your daughter takes ownership of her personal protection.

GratefulCitizen

07-24-2024, 12:16

Badger52

07-24-2024, 20:07

Federal judge vacates ATF classification of FRTs as machine guns.

More importantly, the judge clarifies separation of powers.
The conclusion section of the ruling is powerful.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:de63a6ed-f276-426b-b359-914a6a917b0bCame here to post exactly this. GC's recommendation to read the decision is hereby seconded. ATF is big mad over this one. Skim the early page 1 cites but read the decision. Well-written by someone (judge or clerk) who knows something about firearms.
:lifter

MR2

07-25-2024, 01:00

Badger52

07-25-2024, 04:35

Now we need a pile of lawsuits against the DOJ for unconstitutional takings.That would be a wonderful class-action suit, with a likelihood of prevailing.

Box

07-25-2024, 07:20

The problem is - decent people that love their country; those that appreciate their freedoms, and hold their liberties dear...
...have jobs.
We have bills to pay.
We also have responsibilities.
We are accountable for those responsibilities to friends and family.
We have neither the spare time or the colossal amounts of money needed to engage in sustained lawfare against city hall.
...and they know that.

So instead, we just shit post on the internet in an attempt to show people how full of shit our government processes are. To maaaaybe convince the few folks left sitting on the fence that they have been bamboozled by pop culture...
...or at least to just mercilessly troll those sad soulless shit sacks that have plenty of time to peacefully protest by setting police cars on fire.

sg1987

07-25-2024, 07:42

So instead, we just shit post on the internet in an attempt to show people how full of shit our government processes are. To maaaaybe convince the few folks left sitting on the fence that they have been bamboozled by pop culture...
...or at least to just mercilessly troll those sad soulless shit sacks that have plenty of time to peacefully protest by setting police cars on fire.

Box, I really think you should consider your own podcast. You could be bigger than Joe Rogan.😃

Badger52

07-25-2024, 12:47

bblhead672

07-25-2024, 13:06

Now we need a pile of lawsuits against the DOJ for unconstitutional takings.

Box is right...the average Joe doesn't have the time nor money to fight the DOJ.

However, if some organizations go after the ATF I hope their discovery includes everything about the Las Vegas shooting.

GratefulCitizen

08-06-2024, 20:23

Box

08-06-2024, 22:00

4th circuit upholds AR-15 ban.
SCOTUS will likely hear the appeal.

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211255.P.pdf

For the inside baseball synopsis:
https://youtu.be/a-sjZyenplc?si=KDR6iU85c5QRecz_

I hope SCOTUS rules favorably before Queen Harris declares an executive action, then uses her corporate funded congress to impeach enough of the conservatives justices to allow her to appoint enough radicals to reregulate the 2d amendment from the bench

Badger52

08-07-2024, 04:36

I hope SCOTUS rules favorably before Queen Harris declares an executive action, then uses her corporate funded congress to impeach enough of the conservatives justices to allow her to appoint enough radicals to reregulate the 2d amendment from the benchThat decision took an awful lot of air to say:
"No. BFYTW."

That would be the new summary judgement du jour.

Badger52

08-10-2024, 11:43

Here's the decision. (https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/24/08/233230P.pdf)

The dissenting opinion is actually interesting in that he seems to be saying (to my IANAL eye) "SCOTUS has already spanked ATF over these capricious rulemaking decisions so why is it necessary for us to do this?"

Nonetheless, the previous action is being remanded to lower for reconsideration in light of this decision and the previous SCOTUS ruling on the regime's shenanigans.

:cool:

GratefulCitizen

08-22-2024, 17:07

Machine guns protected by the Second Amendment.

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr10047-35

This is about to get very interesting.

bubba

08-22-2024, 18:36

Machine guns protected by the Second Amendment.

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr10047-35

This is about to get very interesting.

Thank God the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by DJT. This will go all the way up, and hopefully (yes, hope isn’t a course of action) the, at a minimum, “pre-86” BS will go away and I can get my drill press out, even if I have to add to my stamp collection. But, with the 2nd seeming to be climbing to the same status as the 1st (as it damn well should be), the entire NFA may be gone before I am……

Badger52

08-23-2024, 03:52

...the entire NFA may be gone before I am……From your lips to God's ear.
:cool:

bubba

08-23-2024, 07:42

So, because I’m assuming this was a criminal case brought by the gov, would an “appeal” by the prosecution be allowed? Would double jeopardy laws apply here?

bblhead672

08-23-2024, 08:44

the entire NFA may be gone

Couldn't happen to a more deserving infringement.

Bare minimum would be to remove suppressors from the NFA. Imagine the boom in the suppressor industry if you could walk into a store and buy one without any paperwork.

bblhead672

08-23-2024, 10:48

SAF Scores Victory In California Non-Resident Carry Case (https://www.usacarry.com/saf-scores-victory-in-california-non-resident-carry-case/)

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners, in a challenge of California’s ban on non-resident concealed carry, won a victory when a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett, a 2022 Joe Biden appointee, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The state has 21 days to file a response, and within 30 days plaintiffs must “meet and confer” with the state and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department “to submit a proposed order entering the preliminary injunction consistent with the specific findings” made by the court order.

SAF is joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California and seven private citizens.

Notably absent from the list again...the NRA (Not Relevant Anymore).

Badger52

08-23-2024, 19:08

Notably absent from the list again...the NRA (Not Relevant Anymore).Heh, they're havin' a fire sale for Wayne's wardrobe.

Swoop

08-25-2024, 05:47

Imagine the boom in the suppressor industry if you could walk into a store and buy one without any paperwork.

Oh be quiet my ringing ears! :lifter

doctom54

08-25-2024, 11:25

Oh be quiet my ringing ears! :lifter

:):):)

GratefulCitizen

08-31-2024, 12:39

Police officers sued for depriving 2nd Amendment rights, federal judge allows case to move forward:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.91932/gov.uscourts.ilcd.91932.13.0.pdf

YouTuber summation:
https://youtu.be/3IG4b_qfYaw?si=w-g9qWttUp8_2FGv

This is significant.
If individual LEOs can be sued for violating 2nd Amendment rights, they will likely err on the side of self-interest.

This will make it much more difficult to impose draconian anti-gun policies.

Badger52

08-31-2024, 19:56

Excellent.

bblhead672

09-03-2024, 10:37

Badger52

09-04-2024, 05:29

Source over at Breitbart
(https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2024/09/03/judge-illinois-concealed-carry-ban-on-public-transportation-violates-second-amendment/) Decision is hyperlinked below.
A U.S. District Judge ruled Friday that Illinois’ ban prohibiting concealed carry for self-defense on public transportation violates the Second Amendment.

The judge, Ian D. Johnston, issued his opinion in Schoenthal v. Raoul (https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Schoenthal-opinion-8_30_24.pdf).

The plaintiffs in the case, Benjamin Schoenthal, Mark Wroblewski, Joseph Vesel, and Douglas Winston, all claimed the ban violated the Second Amendment.

Schoenthal, Wrogblewski, Vesel, and Winston’s case was supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition.

Judge Johnston noted:

In Illinois, openly carrying firearms is unlawful. Under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, an individual with a concealed-carry license may generally carry a concealed handgun in public….This general permission, however, does not extend to a list of prohibited areas, including public transportation.

He then pointed to Bruen (2022), noting that it set forward a framework by which gun controls must be analyzed and tested.

Johnston pointed to opinions by Kimberly Foxx, State’s Attorney of Cook County, who argued in support of the ban. He then noted that “Finally, and decisively, whatever is true elsewhere in the law, Ms. Foxx’s proposed framework contradicts Bruen, which rejects the relevance of place to the threshold question of whether certain conduct is covered by the Second Amendment.”

He ultimately ruled that “the Firearm Concealed Carry Act’s ban on carrying concealed firearms on public transportation, as defined in the statute…violates the Second Amendment,” as applied to the plaintiffs.

Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb commented on the ruling, calling it a “significant victory” in which “the court recognized Cook County Attorney Foxx’s argument that the ban was legal because Illinois is acting as a property owner was ‘breathtaking, jaw dropping and eyepopping,’ and that wasn’t a compliment. It demonstrates how far government will reach in an attempt to justify its effort to restrict Second Amendment rights.”

IMO appeal is certain. Because Illinois.

MR2

09-05-2024, 10:51

Me either...

bubba

09-05-2024, 14:34

Me either...

Standards are AweSoME. So AweSoME we should have at least 2. Just think, TWICE the AweSoME!

tom kelly

09-08-2024, 13:32

Me either...

Democrat Communists use this to their advantage.

Badger52

09-08-2024, 15:53

From Breitbart (https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2024/09/08/ninth-circuit-panel-california-cannot-ban-concealed-carry-hospitals/); the case is hyperlinked in the quote below

On Friday, a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that California cannot ban concealed carry in hospitals.

The case, Wolford v. Lopez (https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/movaqgzxgva/9th%20Circuit%20CA%20HI%20guns%20opinion%209-6.pdf), centers on “sensitive places” bans on concealed carry which exist in Hawaii and California.

In a unanimous ruling, the three judges said bans could be “enforced in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol and in parks, and that California can enforce bans in casinos, libraries, zoos, stadiums and museums,” according to Reuters. However, the three judges also ruled against Hawaii’s ban on concealed carry in banks “or adjacent parking lots” and against California’s ban on concealed carry in hospitals, churches, and public transit.

What a discussion it must be as they make their checklist of approved places.
:rolleyes:

GratefulCitizen

09-08-2024, 17:42

From Breitbart (https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2024/09/08/ninth-circuit-panel-california-cannot-ban-concealed-carry-hospitals/); the case is hyperlinked in the quote below

What a discussion it must be as they make their checklist of approved places.
:rolleyes:

This is going to be a messy patchwork of prohibited places differing based upon state and local laws, further confused by conflicting circuit courts.
SCOTUS will ultimately have to set down a clear standard.

Something like: courts, jails, legislative assemblies, and polling places…the end.

doctom54

09-09-2024, 09:38

Elon Musk once again comes out in support of the 2nd Admentment
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-minces-no-words-pledging-support-second-amendment-tyrants-disarm-people

bblhead672

09-09-2024, 10:23

Elon Musk once again comes out in support of the 2nd Admentment
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-minces-no-words-pledging-support-second-amendment-tyrants-disarm-people

Elon can see the writing on the wall. Governments are plotting against him to take down X since he refuses to bend to their will. The only thing standing between communist rule and freedom is the 2nd.

Badger52

09-09-2024, 16:21

Elon can see the writing on the wall. Governments are plotting against him to take down X since he refuses to bend to their will. The only thing standing between communist rule and freedom is the 2nd.People have been known to vote themselves into shackles because "I wanted to be part of something historic."

bblhead672

09-10-2024, 14:07

People have been known to vote themselves into shackles because "I wanted to be part of something historic."

People have been known to vote themselves BACK into shackles, albeit a different kind, by voting for the party who offers the most continuous government freebies.

doctom54

09-10-2024, 14:27

People have been known to vote themselves BACK into shackles, albeit a different kind, by voting for the party who offers the most continuous government freebies.

That's exactly what most in politics are counting on. Such as student loan forgiveness. rrrrrrrrrr

Badger52

09-10-2024, 15:15

People have been known to vote themselves BACK into shackles, albeit a different kind, by voting for the party who offers the most continuous government freebies.No dispute there either.

GratefulCitizen

09-24-2024, 22:26

Machine guns protected by the Second Amendment.

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr10047-35

This is about to get very interesting.

One step closer to the NFA being eliminated.

https://www.ksnt.com/news/local-news/appeal-filed-in-kansas-machine-gun-case/#:~:text=KANSAS%2520(KSNT)%2520%E2%80%93%2520The%2 520U.S.,of%2520Kansas%2520dismissed%2520the%2520ca se.

bubba

09-25-2024, 01:30

One step closer to the NFA being eliminated.

https://www.ksnt.com/news/local-news/appeal-filed-in-kansas-machine-gun-case/#:~:text=KANSAS%2520(KSNT)%2520%E2%80%93%2520The%2 520U.S.,of%2520Kansas%2520dismissed%2520the%2520ca se.

This case is the brass-ring in the keystone of the .gov’s untenable assault on the 2A. If the judge (s) can read and comprehend the English language, then the NFA is akin to a tax on churches. But, hey, here’s to hopeful thinking…. And hope isn’t a COA.

GratefulCitizen

09-25-2024, 22:22

Idaho leads coalition of majority of states in amicus brief advocating for granting of cert for AR ban case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-203/326652/20240923154901899_Snope_921.pdf

If SCOTUS grants cert, and rules consistent with Bruen, the “assault weapon” ban issue will be dead.

Badger52

09-26-2024, 05:05

GratefulCitizen

09-26-2024, 20:43

State attorney irritates a federal judge in Second Amendment case:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.419397/gov.uscourts.ilnd.419397.122.0.pdf

YouTuber breakdown:
https://youtu.be/Cbh1GgQCzcE?si=DWBALP1fG-hRwKVm

bubba

09-27-2024, 03:54

Never, EVER mess around with “Rule 11 (b)”…… either in court or on the street, 11 (b) will f-up your day!

Badger52

09-27-2024, 05:11

GratefulCitizen

09-29-2024, 12:44

NAGR submits excellent amicus brief advocating for SCOTUS to accept cert in AR-15 ban case:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-203/326619/20240923135831605_24-203%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

Specifically, they emphasize that the AR-15 is MORE protected by the Second Amendment than handguns because it is better suited to resist tyranny, the issue with which the Founders were quite preoccupied.
They also go into the problems with waiting for a circuit split in Second Amendment cases.

GratefulCitizen

10-15-2024, 15:40

New York ban on carrying on private property struck down:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6597/attachments/original/1728581804/2024.10.10_098_OPINION.pdf?1728581804

Badger52

10-15-2024, 18:22

New York ban on carrying on private property struck down:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6597/attachments/original/1728581804/2024.10.10_098_OPINION.pdf?1728581804

Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. - Trump appointee.

"...permanently enjoined, effective immediately..." My kinda guy.
:cool:

Badger52

11-08-2024, 17:00

News article about it. (https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_69fb718a-9e19-11ef-84aa-1752fce23799.html)

IL was enjoined from enforcement but with a 30-day stay so IL can decide whether to appeal. They may not do that, given that SCOTUS already frowned at IL over the same case and sent it back to "clarify" (again) what was meant by all the other decisions from them.

“Most importantly, considering all of the evidence presented, the Court holds that the provisions of PICA criminalizing the knowing possession of specific semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, magazines, and attachments are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction is GRANTED. The State of Illinois is hereby ENJOINED from the enforcement of PICA’s criminal penalties in accordance with 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 5/24-1(a)(14)–(16) (bump stocks and assault weapons); 5/24-1.9(a)–(h) (assault weapons and attachments); and 5/24-1.10(a)–(h) (large-capacity magazines) against all Illinois citizens, effective immediately.

As the prohibition of firearms is unconstitutional, so is the registration scheme for assault weapons, attachments, and large-capacity magazines. Therefore, the State of Illinois is ENJOINED from enforcing the firearm registration requirements and penalties associated with entering false information on the endorsement affidavit for non-exempt weapons, magazines, and attachments previously required to be registered in accordance with 430 ILL. COMP. STAT. 65/4.1.

This permanent injunction is STAYED for thirty (30) days. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

:cool:

Badger52

12-25-2024, 07:09

EXSUM: Man struggling to get by with wife & raising 3 kids understates his salary in application for food stamps. Turns out later that conviction - making a false statement - yields a "Denied" when trying to purchase a firearms. District Court upholds, but Third Circuit reverses with the following:

Bryan Range appeals the District Court’s summary
judgment rejecting his claim that the federal “felon-in-
possession” law—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—violates his Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We agree with Range
that, despite his false statement conviction, he remains among
“the people” protected by the Second Amendment. And
because the Government did not carry its burden of showing
that the principles underlying our Nation’s history and tradition
of firearm regulation support disarming Range, we will reverse
and remand.

Full decision here (https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212835pen1.pdf) if you've nothing else to do.
:cool:

MR2

12-26-2024, 16:42

<Clap, clap>

GratefulCitizen

01-24-2025, 08:58

Badger52

01-29-2025, 07:09

Nationwide carry.
We’ll see if it goes anywhere.

https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395683
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/645/text?s=2&r=11&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22actionDateChamber%3A%5C%221 19%7CH%7C2025-01-23%5C%22+AND+%28billIsReserved%3A%5C%22N%5C%22+OR+ type%3A%5C%22AMENDMENT%5C%22%29%22%7DPondering how much things have been improved (court cases, etc.) and how much of the same ground has still to be plowed with The Letter and this thread now 12 Years down the road.
:rolleyes:

Paslode

01-29-2025, 09:54

Pondering how much things have been improved (court cases, etc.) and how much of the same ground has still to be plowed with The Letter and this thread now 12 Years down the road.
:rolleyes:

12 YEARS! Time flys when you're having fun.

GratefulCitizen

01-30-2025, 21:50

5th Circuit rules that 18-20 year olds can buy handguns from FFL:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5822/attachments/original/1738260704/2025.01.30_131-1_OPINION.pdf?1738260704

JimP

01-31-2025, 06:24

My daughter was able to take her concealed carry course and carry here inn Texas at 19.

18 and up can carry concealed here.

Badger52

01-31-2025, 07:37

My daughter was able to take her concealed carry course and carry here inn Texas at 19.

18 and up can carry concealed here.
Good deal. Lowering the age of refusenik in the victimhood department.

GratefulCitizen

02-06-2025, 08:42

Machine gun possession charge dismissed on 2nd Amendment grounds:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mssd.123238/gov.uscourts.mssd.123238.28.0.pdf

Badger52

02-06-2025, 16:50

Too bad it was an as-applied (narrow) challenge, but we're going to see this again. :cool:

MR2

02-07-2025, 22:04

Badger52

02-08-2025, 06:26

Executive Order to Protect Second Amendment (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/protecting-second-amendment-rights/)

Unfortunately, this order only covers what the Biden Admin did and ignores what previous administrations/Congresses (including Trump '45) have done!

Commentary (https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/02/07/trump-issues-executive-order-to-protect-second-amendment-and-gun-owners-n1227620)Indeed. I'm from Missouri when it comes to Bondi. I'd like to see her report submitted to POTUS in a month be completely public. She's previously been a fan of ex parte red flag laws and we know, all too well, that being a "staunch law & order type" often doesn't equate with a regard for individual liberty.

:munchin

Badger52

03-07-2025, 07:17

Caught this morning on Breitbart (https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2025/03/06/campus-carry-legislation-heads-south-dakota-governors-desk/):

The South Dakota House passed campus legislation Thursday, which means the bill now goes to Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden’s desk.

On February 20, 2025, Breitbart News reported that the campus carry legislation, Senate Bill 100, was passed by the South Dakota Senate by a vote of 33-2. The measure passed the House by a vote of 55-14, according to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

Currently, the South Dakota Board of Regents (BOR) and Board of Technical Education (BOTE) bar students from having firearms on their persons for self-defense. However, SB 100 would prohibit BOR and BOTE from [limiting] peoples’ ability to carry their concealed pistol and compatible ammunition, a stun gun, mace, pepper spray or other chemical irritant on campus.”

State Rep. Spencer Gosch (R-Glenham) was one of the House sponsors of SB 100 and he commented on the legislation, saying, “[it is a] great bill for the citizens of South Dakota to be able to protect themselves by the way God intended.”

Campus carry is the law of the land in at least 11 states, according to Campus Safety Magazine. Those states are Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

:cool:

Sdiver

03-07-2025, 07:51

Caught this morning on Breitbart (https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2025/03/06/campus-carry-legislation-heads-south-dakota-governors-desk/):

:cool:

Glad I moved here.
It's a refreshing change from the communist rule back in Colorado and New Mexico.

milkman

03-08-2025, 06:31

Alabama and Georgia don't need Gun permits for CCW or open carry. I see open carry some people but mostly people are allowed to CCW for any thing that they can hide. I go to the different ranges to shoot indoor and outdoor and they get really crowded. I haven't seen but a few gun accidental shootings.
There is a couple things that I don'd understand and that is gun manufactures that make their guns without a safety, and people who carry their guns IWB orOWB with a round in the chamber. I understand home defense.
I remember when their were revolvers and the gun accidents were more common because people carried loaded revolvers.

GratefulCitizen

03-28-2025, 20:10

After being on the defensive for over 2 centuries, the 2nd Amendment is back on the offensive.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-department-justice-announces-second-amendment-pattern-or-practice-investigation

Badger52

05-22-2025, 09:03

Reported from Pres. Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill"

As reported out from the bill text passed early this AM in the House (Senate version still to be tweaked):
SEC. 112030. REDUCTION OF EXCISE TAX ON FIREARMS SILENCERS.

(a) In General.--Section 5811(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Rate.--There shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms
transferred a tax at the rate of--
``(1) $5 for each firearm transferred in the case of a
weapon classified as any other weapon under section 5845(e),
``(2) $0 for each firearm transferred in the case of a
silencer (as defined in section 5845(a)(7)), and
``(3) $200 for any other firearm transferred.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply
to transfers after the date of the enactment of this Act.
:munchin

MR2

05-22-2025, 09:54

‘Biggest Second Amendment victory in my lifetime is one step closer to happening.’

https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/05/22/suppressor-delisting-in-big-beautiful-budget-bill-n1228679

Badger52

05-22-2025, 19:48

‘Biggest Second Amendment victory in my lifetime is one step closer to happening.’

https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/05/22/suppressor-delisting-in-big-beautiful-budget-bill-n1228679Looking at the bill text I posted before this, I hope the Senate tweaks things to get it completely de-listed from ANYthing rather than just making the 'tax' zero. It should be a bubble-pak item hanging next to the Outers cleaning kits and the Hoppe's #9.

GratefulCitizen

05-24-2025, 10:27

DOJ appears to be throwing the case (in favor of the 2nd Amendment).
Unsure how judges deal with something like this.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/10472/attachments/original/1748040757/2025.05.23_129-2_Government's_Supplemental_Response.pdf?174804075 7

Razor

05-24-2025, 11:05

Wow, it would be nice to see the Peterson case go in favor of freedom. Then the statement "In the view of the United States, the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories and components..." would be a great precedent to overturn the craziness coming out of the Colorado legislature lately (i.e., requiring 'special' training for semi-autos that take magazines, and the 15 round magazine cap).

As happy as I am to see the suppressor issue moving forward, I'm still not a fan of the giant omnibus bills with a bunch of unrelated issues moving through Congress. I'd much prefer to see bills with a single issue or at least several closely related issues, primarily so both Congress and the public know what's actually being addressed by the bills.

GratefulCitizen

06-05-2025, 08:52

SCOTUS slaps down lawfare against gun manufacturers:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1141_lkgn.pdf

Box

06-05-2025, 09:05

Our shitty substandard unethical immoral elected representatives are the single best defense of legislation like this...

Legal precedence is legal precedence and the second a manufacturer can be held legally accountable for bad people doing bad things with their products - the family of Mary Jo Kopechne should be encouraged to sue the shit out of General Motors - straight into the poor house for those mother fuckers...
...for allowing Ted Kennedy to operate an Oldsmobile.

GratefulCitizen

06-14-2025, 11:29

Feds file amicus brief in assault weapon/magazine ban case:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1403731/dl?inline

The federal government has firmly established itself as pro-2A.

Badger52

06-14-2025, 16:29

Feds file amicus brief in assault weapon/magazine ban case:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1403731/dl?inline

The federal government has firmly established itself as pro-2A.
'Bout bloody time. Long hiatus.
:lifter

GratefulCitizen

07-06-2025, 18:17

NFA is challenged:

https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/GOA-One-Big-Beautiful-Lawsuit.pdf

Badger52

07-07-2025, 05:15

NFA is challenged:

https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/GOA-One-Big-Beautiful-Lawsuit.pdf
Excellent. Thanks.
:cool:

Box

07-07-2025, 08:14

good to hear - we only have a couple years to roll back decades of tyranny before the domocrats work their way back in and start fucking things up again

GratefulCitizen

07-07-2025, 10:02

Badger52

07-07-2025, 19:18

Murdock v. PennsylvaniaI'd love to hear those words come out of one of the SCOTUS jurist's mouth.

GratefulCitizen

07-08-2025, 17:10

Sheriff refuses to return guns.
6th circuit rules that 2nd Amendment right of people to “keep” arms applies and requires application of Bruen methodology.

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0162p-06.pdf

bubba

07-09-2025, 07:56

If this is successful and the registration requirements are enjoined then the table is set for elimination of the remainder of the NFA.
Eliminate the tax = eliminate the registry.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania should be able to kill the remaining taxes.

The biggest issue I can see with the “Zero Tax” on these NFA items is that congress didn’t eliminate the tax, they set it to zero. The courts will likely say something along the lines of “there is still a tax, even if it’s ’zero dollars’ so the NFA restrictions WRT ownership and registration are still valid IAW the tax-powers”……

I wish it was different, but this is how I see this turning out.

ETA: My biggest concern is now that the seal has been broken on the almost century’s old $200 stamp, and the spotlight brought on this nominal amount in current dollars, when (not if) the left regains control of the leavers of power, they can / will set the tax to ~$5,000 (the approximate inflation corrected number from 1934 to 2025) or more……

ALL gun laws are infringements, including taxing the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (guns, knives, swords). ATF should be a convenience store on every major intersection, not a government agency!

bblhead672

07-09-2025, 09:47

ETA: My biggest concern is now that the seal has been broken on the almost century’s old $200 stamp, and the spotlight brought on this nominal amount in current dollars, when (not if) the left regains control of the leavers of power, they can / will set the tax to ~$5,000 (the approximate inflation corrected number from 1934 to 2025) or more……

Given the opportunity, the Communist Party-D & -R factions will probably raise the "tax" so high no one can afford to buy any NFA items.

That suppressors and SBR's weren't completely removed from the NFA is completely the fault of spineless Republicans who allowed a Democrat appointed parliamentarian to alter the bill.

doctom54

07-09-2025, 12:59

Given the opportunity, the Communist Party-D & -R factions will probably raise the "tax" so high no one can afford to buy any NFA items.

That suppressors and SBR's weren't completely removed from the NFA is completely the fault of spineless Republicans who allowed a Democrat appointed parliamentarian to alter the bill.

I read all about the parliamentarian (this particular one and the position in general)
This one is "liked" by both sides; not much surprise there. She rulled on the Byrd Rule that this part could not be included
https://epicforamerica.org/federal-budget/the-byrd-rule/

The President of the Senate, JD Vance, can override the parliamentarian

Needless to say I'm pissed at the whole senate!!

Badger52

07-10-2025, 05:20

Given the opportunity, the Communist Party-D & -R factions will probably raise the "tax" so high no one can afford to buy any NFA items.
That was absolutely the original intent. Like others, I'm surprised no one ever crafted a statute that "adjusts for inflation." But it was meant to be prohibitive plain & simple.

GratefulCitizen

07-24-2025, 10:19

5th circuit rules that carrying a concealed firearm is presumptively lawful:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30777-CR0.pdf

At the top of the decision:

The principal question presented is whether police can Terry stop a
citizen based solely on the fact that he is carrying a concealed firearm. The
answer is emphatically “no.”

Box

07-24-2025, 13:03

I'm not smart.

How can a Terry stop justification be based on "the fact" that I am carrying a concealed firearm when you can't determine that "fact" until I am stopped and searched ??
...could have been a phone
...or a taser
...or a hunting knife
...or a collapsible baton
...or a steel dildo - who knows

My follow on question is just as quizzical to me...
Now that we have established that Terry stops based on "the fact" (or in Boxes world, the assumption) that I am carrying a firearm are not presumptively lawful, how does that impact "me the people" in as much as I don't normally carry a backpack full of whacky weed that might also get me arrest for drug possession.

My confusion is this:

I read the ruling until I could feel my eyes starting to bleed and can't figure out how this ruling impacts a law abiding citizen.
Does this inherently imply that constitutional carry is indirectly a thing now - because you cant search me if you "fact" that I have a concealed firearm?

It sounds like this is a really great ruling for the local street thugs - but how does it make the lives of "me the people" better?

CSB

07-24-2025, 17:54

The carrying of a pistol, concealed or unconcealed, has become “the new normal” in many states.

A police officer may progress from “reasonable suspicion” to “probable cause” and therefore progress from “stop and talk” to “stop and frisk” (Terry stop) only upon observing evidence that a reasonable person would believe disclosed a violation of the law.

When the simple possession of a pistol is no longer a violation of the law, it will be more difficult for a police officer to justify a “frisk” (a pat down to discover weapons), much less a search (go into pockets, backpacks, shopping bags, etc.).

All of which is an interesting exercise in 4th Amendment / 5th Amendment law, but in my opinion …

… has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, or the topic of this thread.

The 2nd Amendment has been raised in self-defense cases, in defense of home cases, in protection from criminals.

I WILL SPEAK BLUNTLY:

None of those have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment.

When John Hinkley shot President Reagen, when Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy, there was a massive outcry that “more gun control” was needed.

And I argued with my liberal friends, who boldly proclaimed to me:

“Well, the 2nd Amendment was never designed to allow citizens to be able to shoot at the President.”

And I tactlessly replied:

“You idiot, that EXACTLY why the 2nd Amendment was passed. It was passed so that We The People can, should the need arise, shoot the President. And the FBI, and the Army/Navy, CIA, etc.”

Then I asked them: “At whom did George Washington assemble an Army, load weapons, and open fire.?”

They say: “The British.”

And I reply: “You need to study your history. George Washington WAS British.”
In the eyes of the law, he was a British as Lord Cornwallis. A British citizen, under the authority of the King.

No, Paul Revere et al. did not call out “The British are coming.” Paul Revere was equally British, too.

Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was "The Regulars are coming out."

Who?

The Regular Army of his Majesty, of the legitimate government.

When the colonists lowered their rifles and opened fire, who were they shooting at?

Their own government! The 18th century version of the legitimate: Army, the Navy, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, the BATFE, etc.

And when the revolutionaries won their revolution, they passed a constitution.

Soon after, realizing that the only reason they were able to create The United States of America was because they had possession of weapons (including cannon, in addition to pistols and rifles). So added, as the Number Two Amendment to what is commonly called the Bill of Rights, our founding fathers made clear – in the second amendment – that the right of “the people” to have firearms is necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment is intended to ensure that we, the people, the body of the citizenry armed (also known as the militia) have the ability to remove a dictator and refute tyranny. It presupposes that we -- the militia -- are persons of sound judgment and are law abiding.

Anyway, that's my opinion, and it ought to be yours.

GratefulCitizen

07-24-2025, 20:59

9th circuit affirms permanent injunction against California law requiring background checks to purchase ammunition:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/07/24/24-542.pdf

JimP

07-25-2025, 04:27

CSB - spot-effing-on.

Remember, a "Terry" stop is NOT authority to stop someone. That's circular logic. You must have a reason to interact with someone to stop them and engage. THEN, you may do pat down to ensure the lack of weapons or the like for Officer safety.

Reminds me of a story a former Operator told me when he went to work for the Air Marshals: He was presenting his creds at the entrance to the gates as he was required to and the agent wanted him to walk through the metal detector. He explained again who he was, why he was there, and showed his creds again. They still wanted him to walk through the detector.

He asked: "what is it you are looking for?"

answer: "Weapons."

He then pulls out his weapons and places them on the table and says "now what?"

They STILL had him go through the metal detector.

We were howling.

Box

07-25-2025, 07:04

....words

THAT is what I was hoping a smart person would tell me.

Part of my unlegal brain assumed that everything you just said was true - he other part just wondered because I don't know ALL of the laws.

I DO however - often argue with those around me - all of the same things you brought up. Taking my guns isn't just a 2nd amendment thing it is a MULTI amendment thing...
...guns aren't just for hunting, they are for shooting tyrannical power grabbers, bullies, rouge agents, etc etc

Thank you for that.

The Reaper

07-25-2025, 12:37

How does the law in many states, including NC, require that concealed weapons permit holders, announce upon initial contact with law enforcement that they are permit holders and that they are armed?

Isn't there a Constitutional issue here, particularly 5th Amendment?

Is it Constitutional for the prohibited person (felon) in possession of a weapon to be forced to admit the concealed carry violation to the LEO before even being questioned?

TR

Box

07-25-2025, 13:53

So - its been quite some time since I did my CCW class - but I went again and sat with my daughter when she went through the course that a friend of mine runs.
It's neat to say "officer, have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and I have my firearm with me in the car" to show that you are a law abiding citizen "playing the game"
...but why

When he runs your DL he is going to KNOW that you have CCW.

Why play the game if they will know as soon as they run your license?
Running the license of a CCW holder that was decent enough to pay the government required extortion money required to "legally" carry your own property on your person seems like a low threat...
...you've got my fucking finger prints on file
...you KNOW that I've probably got a gun on me
...as opposed to some fucking smelly thug with a dank cloud of smoke drifting from his window

It's because the government demands that law abiding citizens bend a knee.
Meanwhile lifetime criminal drug addicts are celebrated as heroes.

I dont want to sound like a hater - but lawfare is such bullshit - and those who play lawfare games are even more bullshit.

Roguish Lawyer

07-25-2025, 14:21

And I tactlessly replied:

“You idiot, that EXACTLY why the 2nd Amendment was passed. It was passed so that We The People can, should the need arise, shoot the President. And the FBI, and the Army/Navy, CIA, etc.”

I knew I liked you for a reason!

Roguish Lawyer

07-25-2025, 14:22

those who play lawfare games are even more bullshit.

There's a blue team too, you know . . . I was just with a bunch of them in DC and they are doing great things.

Box

07-25-2025, 18:42

There's a blue team too, you know . . . I was just with a bunch of them in DC and they are doing great things.

I dont doubt that - I just they were a little more visible - to the moderately uninformed (like myself) they seem to do a lot of hibernating. The undesirables certainly seem to be more active in the public eye.

It would be nice to see the good guys smack somebody across the lips every so often.

bblhead672

07-28-2025, 08:09

The carrying of a pistol, concealed or unconcealed, has become “the new normal” in many states.

A police officer may progress from “reasonable suspicion” to “probable cause” and therefore progress from “stop and talk” to “stop and frisk” (Terry stop) only upon observing evidence that a reasonable person would believe disclosed a violation of the law.

When the simple possession of a pistol is no longer a violation of the law, it will be more difficult for a police officer to justify a “frisk” (a pat down to discover weapons), much less a search (go into pockets, backpacks, shopping bags, etc.).

All of which is an interesting exercise in 4th Amendment / 5th Amendment law, but in my opinion …

… has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, or the topic of this thread.

The 2nd Amendment has been raised in self-defense cases, in defense of home cases, in protection from criminals.

I WILL SPEAK BLUNTLY:

None of those have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment.

When John Hinkley shot President Reagen, when Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy, there was a massive outcry that “more gun control” was needed.

And I argued with my liberal friends, who boldly proclaimed to me:

“Well, the 2nd Amendment was never designed to allow citizens to be able to shoot at the President.”

And I tactlessly replied:

“You idiot, that EXACTLY why the 2nd Amendment was passed. It was passed so that We The People can, should the need arise, shoot the President. And the FBI, and the Army/Navy, CIA, etc.”

Then I asked them: “At whom did George Washington assemble an Army, load weapons, and open fire.?”

They say: “The British.”

And I reply: “You need to study your history. George Washington WAS British.”
In the eyes of the law, he was a British as Lord Cornwallis. A British citizen, under the authority of the King.

No, Paul Revere et al. did not call out “The British are coming.” Paul Revere was equally British, too.”

Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was "The Regulars are coming out."

Who?

The Regular Army of his Majesty, of the legitimate government.

When the colonists lowered their rifles and opened fire, who were they shooting at?

Their own government! The 18th century version of the legitimate: Army, the Navy, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, the BATFE, etc.

And when the revolutionaries won their revolution, they passed a constitution.

Soon after, realizing that the only reason they were able to create The United States of America was because they had possession of weapons (including cannon, in addition to pistols and rifles). So added, as the Number Two Amendment to what is commonly called the Bill of Rights, our founding fathers made clear – in the second amendment – that the right of “the people” to have firearms is necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment is intended to ensure that we, the people, the body of the citizenry armed (also known as the militia) have the ability to remove a dictator and refute tyranny. It presupposes that we -- the militia -- are persons of sound judgment and are law abiding.

Anyway, that's my opinion, and it ought to be yours.

Hear! Hear! Those are the most vital historical facts that most people are either ignorant of or incapable of grasping. Then there's the group that understands it, but chooses to argue for "hunting".

GratefulCitizen

08-02-2025, 12:16

Another lawsuit targeting the NFA:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/14003/attachments/original/1754092754/2025.08.01_001_Complaint.pdf?1754092754

Badger52

08-03-2025, 05:25

Another lawsuit targeting the NFA:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/14003/attachments/original/1754092754/2025.08.01_001_Complaint.pdf?1754092754Chippin' away... Thanks for posting.

GratefulCitizen

08-16-2025, 06:59

Cert for Duncan v. Bonta filed:
(California magazine ban)

https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1512097/2025-duncan-cert-petition.pdf

The case was already GVR’d once.
This is a good vehicle to address magazine bans, and may help with other weapons ban cases.

The 9th circuit was openly defiant of SCOTUS in their ruling.
Good chance cert will be granted, and the issue settled.

Badger52

08-16-2025, 15:01

The 9th circuit was openly defiant of SCOTUS in their ruling.Yeah, there we go. That's the 9th Circuit I know & loathe.
:cool:

GratefulCitizen

08-16-2025, 21:32

This one is for all the marbles.
It’s the case that’s been generations in the making.

If it is ruled pro-2A, then blue cities and states will have lost their tyrannical power.
If it is ruled anti-2A, then we know that the next civil war is upon us.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/16/supreme-court-will-hear-arguments-nov-3-over-nra-backed-challenge-to-ny-gun-law.html

SCOTUS took this up 4 years ago today.
Thanks to Trump’s appointments, it became THE critical 2nd Amendment victory.

Still bearing fruit.
It’s scary to imagine what would’ve happened had the decision gone the other way.

Badger52

08-24-2025, 05:40

Being at a higher level than for the State/Local thread thought I'd put this here. Interesting take on the goings-on in Mordor on the Potomac. From The Reload, linked here (https://thereload.com/gun-rights-groups-chafe-at-dc-takeover-tactics-gun-arrests/).
------
Gun-Rights Groups Chafe at DC Takeover Tactics, Gun Arrests
Stephen Gutowski August 22, 2025 5:05 am

Gun-rights activists are upset with some of the stories coming out of the nation’s capital during the federal takeover of local policing.

The Trump Administration’s deployment of dozens of ATF agents to Washington, DC, neighborhoods and its touting of certain gun arrests have garnered backlash among a key constituency. All of the gun groups that spoke to The Reload raised concerns around some of the tactics and charges being employed during the federal takeover.

“It is deeply troubling that any administration would deploy federal agents that should not exist to enforce immoral and unconstitutional laws that should not exist, on behalf of an agency that should not exist,” Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs told The Reload. “If the Trump Administration is serious about protecting Second Amendment rights then it should start actually doing it.”

“The National Association for Gun Rights has serious concerns about what we’re seeing in Washington, DC right now,” Taylor Rhodes, the group’s director of communications, told The Reload. “ATF agents have no business doing neighborhood patrols, stopping citizens over cigarettes or a case of beer in the back seat. This is the same agency that gave us Ruby Ridge, Waco, and have fought against law-abiding gun owners every chance they have, and now they’re walking the streets of our nation’s capital like a domestic police force.”

The complaints follow the Trump administration’s order for at least 30 ATF agents to patrol DC as part of its takeover of the city’s police department and mobilization of its National Guard. They could dampen gun owners’ support for the administration, despite some of the pro-gun initiatives it has undertaken in other areas. That prospect may restrain some of the administration’s plans for expanding the operation inside DC or, as President Trump has previously suggested, to other American cities.

Last Monday, Trump ordered hundreds of federal law enforcement agents to begin patrolling DC after an assault against a former DOGE staffer. He soon bolstered that effort with National Guard troops and used emergency powers to implement a takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department, despite city statistics showing the city is experiencing a similar crime decline as the rest of the country. The administration agreed to back off on some of its attempted policy and personnel changes after city officials pushed back in court, though.

The White House and ATF have consistently highlighted the seizure of guns in the District as evidence that its operation is working.

A spokesperson, who said the White House is only giving background comments on the DC operation since it involves ongoing investigations, touted the seizure of what they described as “86 illegal firearms” since August 7th. They told The Reload that “legal guns from law-abiding citizens are not being seized” as part of the operation.

However, many gun-rights activists are unsatisfied with that explanation. Luis Valdes, a Gun Owners of America (GOA) spokesman and director of its Florida chapter, said some of the laws the administration is using to seize guns are unconstitutional.

“These single charge violations of people carrying without a permit or possessing an unregistered firearm, those are charges and crimes that shouldn’t exist to begin with,” he told The Reload.

Valdes, a former law enforcement officer, said GOA didn’t object to arrests of people who are accused of using guns to carry out violent crimes. But he said ATF agents doing street patrols and law enforcement arresting residents for mere gun possession crimes raise alarm bells.

“Proactive patrols are good, but the danger here, especially with ATF, is the unlawful and unconstitutional actions that they’re taking, like arresting people for simply carrying a firearm without a permit,” he said. “Right now, in over half of the country, that’s not even a crime. You don’t need a permit to carry a firearm. So, the fact that they are still pressing that in our nation’s capital is a disservice to the American public. These law enforcement resources should actually be tasked toward more serious matters at hand, like legitimate gang activity, drug distribution, violent crime, carjacking–things of that sort.”

Rhodes echoed that sentiment and said the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) opposes the administration’s plans to expand the operation.

“If the President truly wants to fight crime, he should focus on prosecuting violent criminals, not using federal gun cops to intimidate ordinary Americans,” he said. “NAGR will oppose any effort to normalize this kind of federal occupation, whether in D.C. or any other city.”

The White House wouldn’t say how many of the gun arrests were standalone gun possession charges against people without previous records and how many were connected to other crimes. However, it did provide a short list of suspected gun crimes for which people have been arrested during the operation.

It said officers seized two firearms over an outstanding warrant for assault with a deadly weapon, they confiscated a Glock 21 with “a high-capacity magazine” from somebody carrying without a permit who they also charged with possession of a controlled substance, and took one from somebody they arrested for an outstanding warrant for possession of a firearm and theft. The other gun seizure examples the White House gave were for charges the gun-rights advocates objected to. Those include an outstanding warrant for unregistered firearms and carrying a “Smith and Wesson Handgun with 10 rounds of ammunition” without a license.

“Simply stopping someone on the street, doing a Terry pat on them, seeing that they have a firearm, and then arresting them?” Valdes said. “That’s wrong.”

The White House also pointed to its efforts to reduce gun-carry permitting hurdles and US Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s directive not to prosecute residents for carrying rifles or shotguns as part of its efforts to protect gun rights in the city. Valdes said he appreciated those moves, but said they don’t overcome concerns raised by the administration’s other actions.

“That’s a step in the right direction, but the US Attorney in DC should go a step further and just say we’re not going to prosecute law-abiding Americans for carrying a firearm without a permit, period,” he said.

Some gun-rights activists also questioned the use of National Guard troops during the operation. Lara Smith, national spokesperson for The Liberal Gun Club, agreed the ATF’s involvement in neighborhood patrolling is “really problematic and makes no sense.” But she said her group is equally worried about troops being used for civil law enforcement–even if, as The Dispatch reports, they haven’t yet been involved in any direct police action.

“There’s no evidence that there’s actually a crime surge necessitating the National Guard,” she told The Reload. “That’s wildly problematic. It feels like a test run of what are people going to let us do? Not like a technical test run, but ‘what can we get away with’?”

She said her members are concerned the troops, some of whom are set to start carrying guns during the DC deployment, could eventually be turned on gun owners the administration doesn’t like.

“I would say our membership is horrified about the militarization of DC,” Smith said. “They see it as overreach. They’re concerned that it means the administration is going to start coming after lawful gun owners who are on the left.”

Valdes, who said he worked with National Guard troops during his time in law enforcement, said he hadn’t seen any signs that the DC deployment was out of the ordinary for the Guard. He said that aspect of the operation didn’t concern him.

“Personally, I’ve seen the National Guard deployed in law enforcement roles in numerous parts of the US, including even Puerto Rico,” he said. “So it’s, it’s not uncommon to see National Guard assets being used. I mean, I can tell you, from a law enforcement perspective, every time there was a major event in the state of Florida, whether it’s the Super Bowl, whether it’s a political campaign rally, the Daytona 500, the National Guard is deployed for that. And it’s not a riot, it’s not looting, it’s not crime. So, they’re deployed because they have assets and they have resources that local law enforcement doesn’t have.”

Other gun-rights groups haven’t signaled any concern with the DC operation to date.

The National Rifle Association didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment on the ATF or National Guard deployments. However, it posted a supportive piece on its website at the start of the operation. The group, which still has by far the most dues-paying members of any gun group, described the operation as a necessary outgrowth of local DC leadership’s failure to curtail crime.

“Fed up with a violent crime problem that has long been tolerated, and perhaps obfuscated, by D.C. officials, President Trump chose to exert his considerable federal authority to try to address the situation,” the NRA wrote on its Institute for Legislative Action website. “Since its existence, undermining Second Amendment rights has been a priority for the District’s local government. What the DC local government hasn’t done is take violent crime, and the criminals who commit it, seriously.”
[Some NRA-ILA comments follow and can be found at the link above.]
----------------

bblhead672

08-25-2025, 14:28

https://www.wusf.org/courts-law/2025-08-20/appeals-court-sides-medical-marijuana-patients-florida-gun-restriction-case
The panel rejected the federal government’s argument that the restrictions are in keeping with the nation’s history of disarming people deemed dangerous, such as people who are mentally ill or drug addicts.
Siding with medical-marijuana patients in a Florida case, an appeals court on Wednesday found that federal restrictions barring pot patients from buying and using guns appears to run afoul of the Second Amendment.

The federal government “failed to meet its burden … to establish that disarming medical marijuana users is consistent with this nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation,” the decision by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ panel said.

Another chip off the infringement block.

GratefulCitizen

08-27-2025, 10:38

Second Amendment Foundation pulls no punches calling out the 9th circuit on their obvious bias against the 2nd Amendment in amicus brief:

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Yukutake-Amicus-Filed.pdf

GratefulCitizen

09-11-2025, 19:39

3rd circuit ruling on New Jersey concealed carry law:
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/myvmxyzbzpr/09102025newjersey.pdf

For the most part, a loss.
But it had a critical win.

The $50 tax was found unconstitutional due to Murdock v. Pennsylvania.
This creates a circuit split because the 5th circuit ruled the NFA tax constitutional.

This increases the chances of one of these going to SCOTUS.
A win consistent with Murdock v. Pennsylvania means the NFA is likely toast.

Badger52

09-12-2025, 04:09

This increases the chances of one of these going to SCOTUS.
A win consistent with Murdock v. Pennsylvania means the NFA is likely toast.Murdock should've kicked NFA to the curb a long time ago.