Monthly Archives: June 2022

Courts, gun control, Law, Rights, SCOTUS

SCOTUS Remands Remaining Second Amendment Cases

Today’s orders list is out. The Supreme Court granted certiorari for several 2A cases, vacated them, and remanded them back to the Circuit courts “further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).”

Excellent! This is definitely the Court putting the Circuits on notice that they darned well better treat the Second as a fundamental constitutional right not subject to “compelling government interest” means testing. And we mean it this time!

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Courts, gun control, Law, SCOTUS

Reining In Bureaucrats

1 Comment

Yesterday, I wrote about West Virgina v. EPA, a case challenging the ability of EPA bureaucrats to write “law.” If the states won, the precedent would be great news for those challenging the ATF’s propensity for pretending to be Congress.

We won. In a 6-3 opinion, Roberts wrote:

Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.
[…]
This is a major questions case. EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used, statute designed as a gap filler.
[…]
Given that precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA’s claim that Section 111 empowers it to devise carbon emissions caps based on a generation shifting approach, the Government must point to “clear congressional authorization” to regulate in that manner.
[…]
But the only question before the Court is more narrow: whether the “best system of emission reduction” identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For the reasons given, the answer is no.

The bump-fire stock ban, with its redefinition of “manual operation of the trigger comes immediately to mind.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Uncategorized

Another Supreme Court Case To Watch

2 Comments

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency

I only just became aware of this case before the Supreme Court. It isn’t directly related to Second Amendment issues, but if SCOTUS rules for West Virginia et al, the precedent could be useful.

Several groups—including state and local governments and environmental advocacy groups—objected to the issuance of the ACE Rule and its repeal of the Clean Power Plan. . Defending its rule, the EPA argued that getting rid of the Clean Power Plant, in favor of the ACE Rule, was statutorily required by the “clear and unambiguous” language of Section 7411 of the Clean Air Act. . However, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) disagreed with the EPA, giving its interpretation of Section 7411 no deference and holding that the EPA’s interpretation was not required by Congress. . As a result, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the EPA had not relied on its own judgment and expertise in implementing the ACE rule, and accordingly invalidated the rule and remanded to the EPA.

The case is about bureaucratic overreach, “legislation,” beyond the actual law passed by Congress, by unelected executive branch bureaucrats. If that sounds familiar, you must be familiar with the ATF’s nasty habit of redefining words in the law to regulate, or ban, bump-fire stocks and unfinished receivers, to magically turn semi-automatic firearms into machineguns, and so forth. It would be nice to have this precedent to cite to have the courts tell the ATF to stop it.

On the other hand, a win for the EPA would work against us.

On the gripping hand, we already have the executive branch officially declaring that they will ignore the Supreme Court. Laws don’t really matter in a lawless country.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, Law, Rights

For Life, Sometimes; For US

2 Comments

But not for thee, says the Vatican. The Vatican News ran a column on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health ruling, but they couldn’t leave it at that.

For life, always
Being for life, always, also means defending it against the threat of firearms, which unfortunately have become a leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the US.

We can hope, therefore, that the debate on the US Supreme Court ruling will not be reduced to an ideological confrontation, but will prompt all of us—on both sides of the ocean—to reflect on what it means to welcome life, to defend it, and to promote it with appropriate legislation.

And the Vatican will show us the way by taking away the Swiss Guard‘s halberds and SG-550 full-auto assault rifles, and equipping them with powder puffs and super-soakers?

You know what didn’t happen yesterday? 100+ million American gun owners with some 400 million firearms did not murder anyone. But based on CDC data on defensive gun use, 4,000 people probably defended themselves and others using firearms.

How many of those thousands might be dead if their defensive tools were taken away through “appropriate legislation“? Most of us lack the pope’s 24/7 heavily armed security or the option of armored transportation; nor even massive defensive walls, from behind which to lecture others on open borders.

We would prefer to have the ability to defend ourselves and families because we still think we have something to lose.

Perhaps instead of focusing on the inanimate implement, the Vatican should consider what sets the comparatively few murderers apart from the tens of millions of honest, peaceable gun owners who do not murder.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Courts, gun control, gun grabbers, Law, Politics, Rights, SCOTUS, spirit of rebellion

246 Years Of Slippery Slope Make A Great Power Source

Here’s a post from my personal blog. I wanted to share it with TZP readers. Imagine trying to explain GCA ’68, Brady Bill, Lautenberg Amendment, and the past week’s 2A shenanigans to James Madison.

246 Years Of Slippery Slope Make A Great Power Source
[…]
Have you ever been trolled and harassed on social media by some girl you dated? She’s a domestic violence offender. Twitter trolling is annoying, but it hardly seems worth depriving someone of her fundamental, constitutional, individual rights for life. Just block her.

Imagine James Madison hearing about what we’ve done to the Bill of Rights in the 21st century.

“You deprive citizens of their g-d-given right to arms for mean letters?”
[…]

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Courts, gun control, Law, Politics, SCOTUS, Sellouts and traitors

Return of the Vichy NRA?

2 Comments

It’s not as if it ever went away.

The NRA “compromised” to saddle us with the National Firearms Act (taxing and registering wide classes of firearms).

The NRA “compromised” to saddle us with the Gun Control Act prohibited persons, loss of mail order, and more).

The NRA “compromised” to saddle us with the Firearm Owners Protection Act (loss of new NFA items).

The NRA “compromised” to saddle us with NICS (preemptively prove your innocence).

The NRA “compromised” to saddle us with a bureaucratic bump stock ban.

Along the way, the NRA also fought against constitutional carry, and helped write “assault weapon” bans.

Also along the way, the NRA turned around to fund raise to “fight against” those infringements its “compromises” created.

It appears we can add another “compromise” to the list.

NRA asked for mental health funding, school hardening money and 10-year sunset on juvenile records in background check system, per this document.

We can expect an NRA announcement that it will fight this new collection of infringements in 3… 2…

Oops.

BREAKING: NRA Announces Opposition to Senate Gun Control Legislation

“This legislation can be abused to restrict lawful gun purchases, infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans, & use fed dollars to fund gun control measures being adopted by state & local politicians.”

I expect NRA “gimme money” mailings to hit my mail box any second now.

Oh, yes. And there’s this.

The NRA won that case? That’s a surprise to me. I do not see them as a party in the case. It did file an amicus brief. But parties to suits don’t have to file amicus briefs.

Kinda reminds of how the NRA tried to claim credit for HELLER, after trying to kill the case they feared would be lost if it went to SCOTUS.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Courts, gun control, Law, Politics, resistance, SCOTUS

Never Before?

1 Comment

President Dementia is unhappy about Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health which overturned the always dubious mental gymnastics of Roe v. Wade and Casey.

But don’t worry. I’m not co-opting TZP for the abortion issue.

President Joe Biden made remarks on Friday in the wake of the release of a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, and sending the decision-making capabilities on abortion legality back to the states. Biden, a Catholic, is squarely on the side of abortion being a right enshrined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court said unequivocally on Friday that it was not, and that ruling is clearly stated.

Suck it up, buttercup. But this…

He said that “the court has done what they have never done before, expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental, so many Americans have already been recognized.”

Never before? I beg to differ. Gun owners have become accustomed to being stripped of a constitutional right by the Supreme Court since 1939. A right that, unlike abortion, is actually specifically listed in the Constitution.

Welcome to the party, pal.

After decades of infringements that Gropin’ Joe dementedly forgets, we gun owners are thrilled to see the Supreme Court finally noticing, in the frickin’ 21st century, that, Oh, yeah; the right to keep and bear arms is in there.

Biden said that his administration is unable to ensure abortion access via executive order, but that he would advocate for women to be able to legally cross state lines to access abortion, which is not illegal anyway.

Unable? That’s not what he — and his Department of Just-Us — said about the NYSRPA v Bruen ruling, promising to ignore SCOTUS and help states continue the violate the Constitutional Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.

In fact, I expect the Xiden administration to do the same thing on abortion as they say they’ll do with the 2A. And he’ll have lots of Dim support, like Ocassionally-firing-Cortex.

“This decision: illegitimate,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez yelled into a megaphone an activist was holding.

“Into the streets,” AOC chanted repeatedly outside the High Court, according to video captured by Hernandez.

If the Supreme Court is illegitimate, I hope someone more self aware, and with a higher IQ, will remind them just what sort of appellate process they’re leaving us to.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Courts, gun control, Law, Rights, SCOTUS

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION v. BRUEN

4 Comments

The long anticipated Supreme Court decision on New York’s insanely restrictive “good cause” requirements for a concealed carry license has tossed the state requirements, in favor of NYSRPA. For those interested only in this single case, here is the meat of the decision:

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I had feared that, even if they ruled in favor of NYSRPA, it would be a very narrow ruling; touching only on “show good cause” may-issue licensing. But the respondents — Bruen et al screwed up by stupidly presenting what they thought would historical precedents supporting their licensing system. This gave the Court a chance to make strong statements on a number of 2A-related things.

So “proceedings consistent with this opinion” are going to be very, very interesting. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion; when I saw that, I knew it was going to good. He goes into history in surprising detail. This opinion could be used as an American history textbook for a complete school year. Homeschoolers take note.

Continue reading NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION v. BRUEN →

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Courts, gun control, gun grabbers, Law, Politics, Rights

Gang-Rape Safer Communities Act

1 Comment

Last night, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act text finally dropped. I started to look it over, but stopped out of fear that an anger-induced stroke might get me before I could fall asleep.

Always keep in mind just what “bipartisan” really means.

Background Checks
Engaged In the Business
Red Flag Laws
Straw Purchases and Trafficking
Domestic Violence
Miscellanea

The firearms-related portion of this bill is Title II – FIREARMs (there’s actually plenty more stuff covered, quite unrelated, to anyone but a politician/bureaucrat).

Continue reading Gang-Rape Safer Communities Act →

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
"News Media", gun control, Law, mindset, Political philosophy, Politics, Rights, Sellouts and traitors, Voting

The Great RINO Hunter? Or Double Barrel Deception?

It seems a Missouri candidate to replace outgoing Demoncrat in RINO drag Roy Blunt has come with up a campaign ad guaranteed to blow up the internet and leftist minds with a furor. To be fair there are conservatives that have reservations about it as well. But first I’ll let you watch it.  Just watch, then we’ll discuss. Ok?

Now, I don’t really have that big a problem with the ad. I don’t. It’s cheesy and over the top, but Greitens has some stiff competition for the Senate seat so he’s trying to set himself to the front of everyone’s mind. It did blow some (most likely) RINO minds. Caleb Rowden, the Missouri Senate majority leader said on Twatter he contacted the Missouri Highway Patrol and hoped Greitens got help. I think that seems a bit, well, stupid on Rowden’s part. Can anyone say “Red Flag”? I knew you could. I did hear a caller named Carl who called in and said in light of recent events he thought it was kind of tone deaf, and going to scare people that don’t understand guns or the Second Amendment. Well, I can’t argue that. He also has some baggage to overcome, that’s not my problem with him either. I’ve written columns defending him in the past, SO WHATEVER HAPPENED TO because the prosecutor that went after him, Kim Gardner is a Soros plant. So it’s not that.

It’s this. Greitens Has Second Thoughts On Second Amendment Preservation Act

Former Missouri governor and current U.S. Senate candidate Eric Greitens has pivoted 180 degrees on the issue of the state’s Second Amendment Preservation Act; a new law that took effect earlier this year that forbids state and local police from working with their federal counterparts in enforcing federal gun control laws that aren’t mirrored in state statute.

….

Greitens, who’s running against a crowded field in the Republican primary for the seat currently held by retiring GOP Senator Roy Blunt, slammed SAPA and its supporters.

But he’s in famous company. “Democratic officials from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland down to St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones” don’t like it either.

But wait five minutes, a few days later he “100% supports it”.

The article listed raises a good point.

I suspect that Greitens’ original comments were meant as a slight against Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who’s both supported SAPA and is also running to replace Roy Blunt in the Senate. I can understand wanting to differentiate yourself from the competition, but referring to SAPA supporters as either willing accomplices or innocent dupes of the defund the police movement, Greitens ended up metaphorically shooting himself in the foot.

Now this article is from Dec 6, 21 so it’s not exactly fresh. I’ve raised the concerns of Greitens comments to others in the Second Amendment community. The Missouri Second Amendment Protection Act is a darn fine piece of legislation. One of the things it is meant to protect Missouri citizens from is this, and this is from 2005. I’m not predicting the future here, this is something that has already happened.

ATF, Virginia Police Accused of ‘Persecuting’ Gun Shows You’ll have to read the article to find out about the heavy ATF and local law enforcement presence combined at the show. I want to draw your attention to ONE of the things that took place. You should really read the whole thing to see everything that took place.

“They did something else, which is highly illegal,” Gelles charged. “They did something called a residency check.”

Gelles explained that, when gun dealers took the paperwork to the Virginia State Police on-site office to complete the background checks on prospective buyers, ATF agents copied the names, home addresses and telephone numbers of the applicants.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told Cybercast News Service that he has received numerous complaints alleging that as handgun buyers were waiting for their National Instant Check System (NICS) background investigations to be completed, ATF was secretly conducting the so-called “residency checks.”

According to the complaints he received, Van Cleave said officers were dispatched to the homes of the prospective gun buyers to speak with family members, asking for example: “Gee, did you know your husband was going to a gun show today? Do you have his cell phone number? Did you know he was buying a gun?

“If people weren’t home they, in some cases, went to neighbors” to ask the same questions, Van Cleave said.

“I’m not an attorney but, I’ll tell you what, in my opinion that would be a violation of federal law,” Van Cleave said. “To go off on a fishing trip with that information, much less sharing information like that with neighbors, there’s no way that’s legal.”

And, as I said, this is just one of the things listed in the account, there are others. And Eric Greitens thinks it’s fine. He wants local elected officials to sell out their law abiding citizens that depend on them, and elected them for what? Relief from federal pressure, a new militarized Humvee or something? I dunno, nor do I care. But this sort of abuse of citizens is what the Missouri SAPA is meant to prevent. We currently have a weaponized federal law enforcement branch, if you doubt that ask someone that’s been attacked by them.

Isn’t it nice to have friends that tip you off to stuff that’s going on so you can fire up the internet and share in the fun? Eric Greitens was on the Pete Mundo in the morning show, a morning radio show that covers Missouri politics, local politics, events and opinions. I know for a fact someone sent in a question about his waffling support on Missouri’s SAPA. And asked in light of his recent kerfluffle (Caleb Rowden’s call to the MOHP) would he be re-thinking his lack of support for it?

Nope. He was asked, but just like he weaseled around before when the show host asked him about it. The host mentioned Dana Loesch had dinged him on it, and to be honest Dana is supporting Eric Schmitt. Greitens just dismissed the question and said since she’s supporting another candidate…..but listen for yourself, it’s not that long a segment and hopefully I have it set to start after the ads.

Another caller later pointed out Greitens hadn’t answered the question, it seemed his approach is “If you don’t support me, you’re a RINO” and that he is very much making use of the branding and labels of MAGA. I don’t trust this, I don’t trust it at all and the more he does it the more it makes my spidey senses tingle. I really wanted to write a column in support of this guy, but government is not a friend of the people. Especially not now.

Most of the show including follow up callers can be found here https://omny.fm/shows/pete-mundo-kcmo-talk-radio-103-7fm-710am/eric-greitens-controversial-rino-hunting-ad-goes-v

I also listened to a Dennis Prager Fireside chat today (Otto! The Bulldog!) On what’s more dangerous than Guns?
https://www.prageru.com/video/ep-241-what-is-more-dangerous-than-guns

He rightly points out that nuclear weapons are far more dangerous than guns. But no one is concerned that France, the U.K. and more than likely Israel have them. People are concerned Russia, North Korea, China and soon Iran have them. Then he pointed out how many millions have been murdered at the hands of their own governments. Only government having guns is far scarier than guns, because who’s hand the gun rests in matters.
So a politician that loudly proclaims he’s pro-Second Amendment while obviously on more than one occasion disparaging laws set to protect citizens from Federal overreach does not impress me. The time to get legislation like that passed is before it’s needed, because after it’s needed it’s too late. If Greitens can’t look down the road and foresee that, he’s not going to help much. He’s like the guy in the bus after it’s gone off the curve and tumbled down the cliff on the third roll who says “Slow down and watch out for the curve!”. He may not be as bad as a Susan Collins or a Roy Blunt, but he sure isn’t a Rand Paul or Josh Hawley. And that’s just if there is no malicious intent.

Nope, Spidey senses are tingling.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail