It’s probably worth noting that the ATF’s pistol brace rule was formally published in the Federal Register today, making it official.
The countdown has started. If you have a braced pistol, you have 120 days to decide how to proceed.
You may have heard that those attempting to register braced firearms as short-barrel rifles, may have an issue. Some claimed that if the form isn’t processed in 88 days, then it’s automatically denied. A more cogent explanation clarifies that.
When you apply for your tax stamp, the ATF goes to the FBI’s NICS for a background check. Unlike a firearm sale, which can proceed if the NICS check doesn’t come back in three days, at 88 days without a NICS response, the application is denied. It’s then up to you to go to the FBI and ask “What the heck’s going on with my background check?” and resubmit your stamp application.
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. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
It begins by defining a new class of evil firearms; the assault pistol.
“assault pistol” means a semiautomatic pistol that accepts a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following characteristics:
(a) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside the pistol grip;
(b) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip or silencer;
(c) a shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned;
(d) a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded;
(e) a centerfire pistol with an overall length of twelve inches or more; or
(f) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;
Fairly standard Dimwit definition of “assault weapon,” except that it only applies to handguns, not long guns. An oversight? Is Soules just focused on the California “assault pistol” allegedly used in the recent Chinese new year shooting, due to the notoriously short Dim attention span?
But now things get interesting. After defining “automatic firearm” and “semiautomatic,” he adds this language.
B. The manufacture, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited: assault pistols; automatic firearms; rifles with barrel lengths less than sixteen inches; shotguns with barrel lengths less than eighteen inches; mufflers, silencers or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms; any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof coated with teflon or any other similar coating designed primarily to enhance its capabilities to penetrate metal or pierce protective armor; and any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof designed or intended to explode or segment upon impact with its target.
That looks to me like someone is very worried about the federal National Firearms Act being overturned, and wants to ensure they still have a state law on the books when it happens.
“Manufacture, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition.” Nothing about possession of anything you currently have. nothing about registration. That’s something; but I expect Soules merely left that out knowing that an outright ban won’t fly. If he can get this bill passed, I’m sure he’ll address that little matter later.
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. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
As I’ve mentioned before, in some ways I see a national divorce as potentially the only way to salvage part of America as we know and love her. Barring of course appealing to Gov Ron DeSantis to come in and begin administration of the states that want that, as opposed to those who are upset by M&Ms with shoes.
But if Gov. DeSantis responds to the requests of other red states with inadequate governors to go in and help restore American values such as one set of rule and laws for everyone as well as equal enforcement, limited small government, actual classroom lessons in STEM and real American history, just be aware Ukraine will be sending money and possibly troops to prevent the “invasion”. Just as our government has done to the people in the Donbas region. Russia will laugh her tail off.
So, short of asking Gov. DeSantis for help, let’s look at a couple of interesting thing. First up, she’s a 10…th…Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The anti-commandeering clause says that the federal government can not compel local governments to enforce their tyranny. Some ATF examples from 2007 Office of Inspector Generals report involving egregious acts from just Richmond, Virginia, from May 2004 through August 2005.
The first hearing presented testimony from four witnesses who alleged that ATF agents used aggressive and harassing techniques primarily at a gun show held on August 13 and 14, 2005, at the Richmond International Raceway in Virginia. Three of the witnesses were present at the gun show: the gun show promoter, a gun salesman who worked for a federally licensed dealer but represented him self as a private seller at the show, and a federally licensed dealer who had exhibited his firearms collection for sale at the Richmond gun show. The fourth witness was a private investigator who was hired by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to conduct an investigation o f ATF enforcement activity at the August 2005 gun show. The witnesses alleged that ATF Special Agents and state and local police interrogated and intimidated gun buyers, targeted women and minorities as potential straw purchasers, visited the homes of buyers to verify their addresses, and detained some gun buyers after they left the gun show and seized their weapons without cause.
Showed.Up.At.Gun Buyers.Homes.
But they’re better now, right? From a forum post:
This is a scary but true PSA , the ATF requested a table in the entrance area of a gun show today in Ft. Wayne, 5 agents in full ATF regalia met patrons as they entered our show.
I did not interact with said ATF nor do I recall seeing there presence in the show, I was a vendor, back in a corner selling gunsmithing tools, but none the less the ATF was there, in force.
One guy I know well did interact with these agents, asking the agents to explain a certain law to him, the ATF declined because, they, the ATF could not understand the language nor the depth/ limit of the laws scope……isn’t that scary!!
To the best of my knowledge the ATF did not ask for ID no inspect any guns, but I am certain they were there as part of there “we hate you , you don’t deserve the protection of the constitution ” thug squad.
And then there is the “let’s take the jackboots on the road” show, and this is where the anti-commandeering part comes in as well.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Multiple Arkansas sheriff’s offices are pushing back against a new gun policy from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, (ATF).
This new federal rule states that those who use a “brace stabilizer” attachment will have to register their weapons with the government.
Gun control groups support the new policy, but not everyone agrees.
Stone County Sheriff Brandon Long and the Cleburne County Sheriff’s Office shared that their offices would not assist the federal government in enforcing this policy.
A Washington state sheriff recently advised residents in his county that if agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) come to their homes without a search warrant asking to inspect their firearms, they can tell them to leave their property.
Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer said in a press statement on Friday that agents are “making surprise home visits of persons who have purchased two or more firearms at one time. To my knowledge, these ATF visits have not occurred in Washington State yet.”
So until the corrupt BATFE can be defunded, or rebuilt, this might help keep citizens a bit safer from them.
May I just point out, the left already does this and thinks it’s peachy keen. Sanctuary cities, do they deport illegals or work with ICE? The federal government still has laws against pot, and yet many states don’t enforce them, let along allow local law enforcement to do so. Basically no undocumented doobie will be deported.
Let’s extrapolate this. Let’s start with something that had should never have been started, Covid. What if each county or city had not been greedy to take the federal bucks that came with covid and had refused to follow the federal mandates? No lockdowns, no business killing policies that only helped the big Dim mega-donors like Bezos? No paper burqas, no healthcare workers still trapped in the CO2 retaining masks because they have a desire to help people. I know, irony abounds. The CDC guide lines from the lying Walensky may cause hypercapnia. Confusion is always a good thing to look for in your healthcare workers, right? And all for no good reason as even the lying Fauxci had to admit under oath to the mighty AG from Missouri (now Senator) Eric Schmitt, that there are no studies showing masks work. So that would mean no police raiding struggling restaurants, no police or security dragging un-masked mothers sitting alone on bleachers off in handcuffs, and Stephanie Warriner would still be alive. Canadian judge drops charges on hospital security guards in Stephanie Warriner asphyxiation death, new video shows them slamming her into wall
This poor tiny young woman had Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. She couldn’t breath with the mask on. She made a grave error in judgment. She went to a Canadian hospital, where they murdered her. She was “wearing her mask too low” as she was trying to breath, and the idiot security guards who have as many brains between them as Ashli Babbit’s murderer Michael Byrd killed her. Great job guys, you would have a bright future with the Metro PD. May they die horrible deaths as they gasp for breath.
The guards initially claimed that they were assaulted by the frail woman suffering from COPD, but it was later found that the guards lied. “Mr. Hutley went as far as to claim that Ms. Warriner delivered several overhand and underhand punches to Ms. Rojas-Silva’s face and was kicking her feet,” says a court document by the Crown.
“Later on, Mr. Hutley began sobbing and admitted he had not been truthful in the report, saying ‘I’m sorry. I would have never said the things I said in there if I knew there was a video,'” the court document says.
Yes, I’m pissed.
But these are policies that are enforced because of the government guidelines. And granted the communist country of Canada has no Constitution or 10th Amendment under dear leader Turdo.
But imagine if every county in each state were responsible for evaluating federal guidelines and deciding to accept or reject them and no local law-enforcement was to be utilized in their enforcement. Local politicians are subject to re-election, unelected bureaucrats, not so much. They just go on to make lots of royalties with their wife in charge of ethics for their department. Sounds legit.
Things might look very different. Thousands of small businesses might still be around.
A friend of mine from Missouri sent me something interesting that could be helpful as well. It involves how a state’s constitution is amended and ballot initiatives. This example is from Missouri, but other states may do things differently.
Currently, it takes only a simple majority statewide vote of the people to ratify a proposed amendment and those votes can all come from a relatively small geographic area. Which means in their recent vote to allow legalized pot, it passed. And how did it pass in a red state like Missouri?
Who voted to legalize pot?
Because high crime, demoncrat controlled areas voted for it. Tyranny of the majority as he calls it. But the majority of counties do not want it.
One of the proposed solutions was needing a vote of 2/3 to pass a ballot initiative, but that meant that the populated areas could nix it sending it to the courts, then you have the courts ruling over things. This is what you see in Israel. The Knesset passes a law, the totally left-wing Supreme Court says no. And the people’s elected representatives are dead in the water. There is currently a battle in Israel over this, in the American media it’s called “Israel’s democracy is dead”. Right, because when the people’s elected representatives can’t pass laws the people want it’s a good thing according to the left. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/366376 So no need to reinvent the wheel, we know this doesn’t work out well.
So that brings me to the second item, besides not press-ganging our local officials or law-enforcement into service of the federal leviathan. This idea comes from Missouri First. Um, so did the pot graphic, I shamelessly swiped it. It’s called the Concurrent Majority Ratification. A majority of voters, statewide will have to vote “yes” AND ALSO
A majority of voters in each of more than half the 163 state House districts would have to vote “yes.”
Pretty clever eh? He points out it is very consistent with other areas of government.
States vote to ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution – we don’t take a national popular vote.
The Electoral College – we don’t elect the president by a national popular vote.
Two U.S. Senators per state, no matter the size of the state.
Bicameral legislatures.
Members of the House of Representatives (both U.S. and state) represent geographic districts.
So, will we end up with a National divorce? I don’t know, but if states begin to utilize the 10th Amendment and especially the anti-commandeering clause more as well as looking at amending state constitutions to reflect traditional laws perhaps it could be avoided. Although I still suspect there will be areas that are going to break off. The demoncrats have so polarized and divided the country I’m not sure we share much of anything anymore.
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits. By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal law enforcement efforts and program implementation, states, and even local governments, can effectively bring the federal actions to an end.
It’s the usual mess, defining “assault weapons” as semi-autos that use detachable magazines and have one of the same ol’ same ol other characteristics: pistol grip, adjustable or detachable stock, grenade launcher, barrel shroud, threaded barrel.
Presumably grenade launchers on pump action shotguns are still cool.
It also includes:
A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
Weirdly, despite that “semiautomatic, detachable magazine” definition, the idiot saw fit to include page after page of exempted weapons: lever actions, side by side and over and under shotguns, bolt actions, and assorted semi-autos with fixed magazines.
She’s never been noted for her cognitive acuity, even before her brain turned to jello.
As usual, Feinstein’s “ban” doesn’t actually ban any firearm. All those millions of existing AR- and AK-pattern firearms are grandfathered. Apparently at least one of the senile senator’s keepers still recalls this warning.
“The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every law enforcement officer out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.”
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. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
I like Aesop’s, of the Raconteur Report, style; most of the time. I often like what he has to say. But in the matter of Alec Baldwin’s negligent killing of Halyna Hutchins, I must respectfully disagree.
“According to industry wide safety regulations, whose sole and entire JOB is it, on production sets, going back to before anyone of the RUST set was born, to handle, load, supervise, and ensure the total safety and inability of prop weapons to cause death or injury to result on set from the use of any such prop weapon, barring a blatant violation of the safety rules?”
Yes, the armorer is hired for that — supposed — expertise. That’s why almost-armorer Gutierrez-Reed is also facing a manslaughter charge. But…
Screw “industry wide safety safety regulations.” Try basic firearms handling safety rules, upon which those regs should be based.
ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET (and what is beyond it, like your director)
Observe that none of those rules is prefaced with “Expect someone else to make sure that…” In the end, the final responsibility rests with the person holding the gun: Baldwin. Those rules aren’t all that hard. I have known six year-old children who successfully learned and faithfully followed them.
Of course, Baldwin’s defense uses Aesop’s argument. His lawyer said:
“Mr. Baldwin had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun — or anywhere on the movie set. He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds. We will fight these charges, and we will win.”
When I’m cleaning a firearm, I have “no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun,”but I still check.
Imagine for a moment that this was not a firearm-related death. Instead, pretend that Baldwin was framing that shot in preparation for a scene in which he drives a car. Note: not filming an action scene; framing in preparation for a scene to be filmed later.
Hall hands Baldwin the keys and says, “Cold car.”
Baldwin, for some reason not called for in framing, starts the car and puts it in gear. (cocks the hammer, past half cock to full cock)
Baldwin turns the steering wheel towards Hutchins. (points the gun)
Baldwin hits the accelerator and runs down two people, killing one. (pulls the trigger)
Baldwin then exclaims that it’s not his fault because no one told him there was gas in the car.
And for fun, imagine he did this after after years of pontificating about “car safety.” (“gun safety,” gun control)
That last point isn’t even about karma, comeuppence, or irony. It’s a legal point; one I’d raise in court if I were the prosecutor: Over the course of years, Baldwin has presented himself as sufficiently knowledgeable about firearms, safety, and law to lecture me about how to handle my own firearms. Yet now he claims innocence due to an abysmal lack of knowledge and common sense regarding those very things; a lack so great that he needs an entire crew to protect himself — and everyone around him — from his own imbecilic ignorance.
One more time; if I were the prosecutor, I’d present clips from interviews, and social media post of Baldwin telling everyone else how to do it right, and ask him, “Mr. Baldwin, for years you’ve claimed you know better on firearm safety than everyone else. Why are you now claiming to be dumber than a six year-old in need of constant adult supervision?”
Sorry, Aesop. I do see your point. But based on Baldwin’s interviews and disclaimers, police reports, and forensic reports, I have to disagree with you on this one.
Baldwin is responsible for what he did. Not solely, but responsible.
Added: Even if Baldwin is that lethally irresponsible and foolish, another fact remains: He was also a producer for this film, meaning he was one of the people responsible for hiring competent personnel to protect everyone from his own stupidity.
“It is incumbent on anybody that holds a gun to make sure that it is either not loaded or to know what it is loaded with,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press. “And certainly then to not point it at someone and pull the trigger. That’s where his actor liability, we think, comes in.”
She also emphasized that while Baldwin is to be charged as the man with the gun in his hand, his role as a producer, and at least partial responsibility for the lax conditions that led to his having a loaded gun, were a consideration in deciding to bring the charges.
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. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Florida has a state preemption statute: firearms regulation is the provenance of the state, not lower level local jurisdictions. Even better, Florida law includes significant civil penalties for hopped up local politicians that try passing their own little gun control laws in their little ponds.
Naturally, they don’t like that. What? Hold us responsible for breaking the law? We have sovereign immunity!
The imposition of these civil statutory actions for violations of the Preemption Statute does not violate governmental function immunity. It is not a core municipal function to occupy an area that the Legislature has preempted, and local governments have no lawful discretion or authority to enact ordinances that violate state preemption. See Fla. Power Corp., 579 So. 2d at 107 (“While the authority given to cities and counties in Florida is broad, both the constitution and statutes recognize that cities and counties have no authority to act in areas that the legislature has preempted.”).
Accordingly, we conclude that the First District did not err in concluding that governmental function immunity does not prohibit the statutory actions in section 790.33(3)(f).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, we conclude that neither legislative immunity nor governmental function immunity prohibit the statutory actions and penalties in section 790.33(3)(c), (d), and (f). Accordingly, we approve the First District’s decision in City of Weston.
Anyone stupid enough to try passing local gun control laws in Florida now definitively faces fines up to $5,000, and damages up to $100,000.
Best of all:
public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.
Violators are out of personal pocket for those bucks. Not the taxpayers, not the city’s insurance company.
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. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Assistant director David Halls has signed a plea agreement for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon. The terms include a suspended sentence and six months of probation. A copy of the plea agreement will be available after it has been filed with the court.
As I’ve explained before, involuntary manslaughter — a felony — appears to be the most appropriate charge for Baldwin. I don’t think he had any intent (required for a murder charge) to kill Hutchins, but he willfully broke every firearms safety rule there is.
Given Gutierrez-Reed’s actions and inactions, involuntary manslaughter also sounds right. Based on police reports, I think they could also nail her on tampering with evidence, but it doesn’t appear she’s been charged with that.
In fact, Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed are facing two, alternate charges. And that worries me just a bit.
The first charge can be referred to simply as involuntary manslaughter. For this charge to be proved there must be underlying negligence. Under New Mexico law, involuntary manslaughter is a fourth-degree felony and is punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine. This charge also includes the misdemeanor charge of negligent use of a firearm, which would likely merge as a matter of law.
The other charge is involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act. This charge requires proof that there was more than simple negligence involved in a death. This is also a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in jail and up to a $5000 fine.
With the misdemeanor “negligent use” charge included, this might give Baldwin some room to plea bargain. I hope, for the sake of justice, that this doesn’t happen.
Halls’ misdemeanor negligent use charge is about right for him. He seemingly “merely” handed Baldwin a loaded weapon without checking it. Stupid; but he wasn’t primarily responsible for the status of the firearm (that would start with the idiot armorer), and he wasn’t the lethal lunatic who pulled the ttrigger: Baldwin himself.
I know many people would like to see Baldwin face a more serious murder charge, seeing how often he’s run off at the mouth about guns and other people; but involuntary manslaughter, as defined in New Mexico law, best fits the circumstances and more much more easily proved in court than murder.
Barring a generous plea deal for a Hollywood name, this — and the civil suits — is the best shot at something resembling justice.
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. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Always read the fine print. I saw a report on a bill filed in Massachusetts, HD 353.
MA may now ban all semi-auto rifles and shotguns Virtually all semi-automatic firearms would be banned under a proposed Massachusetts law expanding the reach of its existing “assault weapons” ban.
[…]
The bill replaces the state’s lengthy definition of “assault weapon” with the phrase “any rifle or shotgun containing a semiautomatic mechanism.” Handguns are not mentioned in the bill.
Yes, and no. The bill does change some definitions in current law, specifically “Large capacity weapon”, any firearm, rifle or shotgun.” That would include assorted characteristics involving capacities and magazines.
“Large capacity weapon”, any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device; (iii) that employs a rotating cylinder capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition in a rifle or firearm and more than five shotgun shells in the case of a shotgun or firearm; or (iv) any rifle or shotgun containing a semiautomatic mechanism. The term “large capacity weapon” shall be a secondary designation and shall apply to a weapon in addition to its primary designation as a firearm, rifle or shotgun
MA Gen L ch 140 § 121, which the bill in question is modifying, already defines “firearm” as “a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged.”
So while HD 353 doesn’t use the words “handgun” or “pistol,” it does include “firearm,” which does include them.
With this bill any fixed mag or revolving pistol holding more than 10 rounds would be banned. And any detachable magazine autoloader would be banned because if it takes a detachable mag, it’s “capable” of taking a large capacity mag.
Between state permits to purchase and transfer registration, all those would-be banned autoloading pistols are effectively registered. So the cops will know whose doors to knock on down.
As for semiauto rifles and and shotguns…
(iv) any rifle or shotgun containing a semiautomatic mechanism.
And reinforced in…
SECTION 4. Section 123 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out the words “assault weapon”, in lines 146 and 147, and inserting in place thereof the following words:- any rifle or shotgun containing a semiautomatic mechanism.
This would effectively ban virtually all semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns currently lawfully possessed in Massachusetts. But, as always, those unlawfully possessed by bad guys?
Not so much. Theirs probably aren’t registered.
Nor would this ban on evil, nasty weapons of mass death apply to cops.
Odd, that.
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. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
No doubt regular TZP readers heard about the recent Supreme Court lack of a decision in ANTONYUK v. STEVEN NIGRELLI. For those who haven’t: Plaintiffs filed suit challenging New York’s recent, post-Bruen, weapons carry law, notably declaring a wide assortment of sensitive places where the state claims it can ban firearms.
The district court issed an injunction against enforcement of the ban pending full trial on the matter. The state appealed to the Second Circuit, which — for no particular reason — stayed the injunction.
Plaintiffs appealed to SCOTUS asking the Court to lift the stay. SCOTUS declined to do so.
When I heard about the SCOTUS lack of action, it was reported merely as an unexplained denial; that’s fairly normal, so I didn’t think too much about it.
Until Monday, when I finally saw an article that mentioned that Justice Alito, with Thomas concurring, had actually issued a statement in conjunction with the denial. The meat of the matter is this:
The District Court found, in a thorough opinion, that the applicants were likely to succeed on a number of their claims, and it issued a preliminary injunction as to twelve provisions of the challenged law. With one exception, the Second Circuit issued a stay of the in- junction in full, and in doing so did not provide any explanation for its ruling.
[…]
I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.
If those few lines are TL;DR you, it amounts to, Rather than prioritizing the protection of constitutionally-protected First and Second Amendment rights of the people, SCOTUS thinks the Second Circuit’s procedures are far more important.
Even when the Second doesn’t seem to be following its own usual procedure.
Bureaucratic process — or the lack thereof — over human/civil rights.
I’ve have some confidence in some Justices, but even post-Bruen, this illustrates why I have near-zero confidence in the overall Supreme Court.
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. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Apparently these aren’t working well enough in Washington, DC.
So now they’re going to…
Yep, “murder free zones.”
The court challenges should be fun, as some idiots decide this is an unconstitutional endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs; never mind that they’re going to be posted by a non-governmental non-profit group.
If signs actually do any good (suuurre…) I’d suggest something like this:
IF YOU TRY TO
MURDER
SOMEONE IT IS LEGAL
FOR THEM TO
KILL
YOU FIRST
Maybe that would get someone to pause for a second or two. Perhaps. For those who can still read.
Regarding the Biblical text: I’m no linguist, but some folks better at ancient languages than I have told me that “Thou shalt not kill” is a mistranslation. Apparently it should read “Thou shalt not murder,” because G-d and the ancient Jews knew the difference between murder and justifiable homicide (self defense), and had separate terms for each.
I’ve always wondered since if that mistranslation was deliberate on the part of religious and secular authorities who wanted to blur the difference, to deter peasants and other downtrodden killing tax collectors and other authoritarian thugs.
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. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
