Category Archives: SCOTUS

Courts, gun control, Law, Rights, SCOTUS

Dick Heller Is Suing DC Again

3 Comments

Over ammunition limits this time. From Heller’s filing:

25. Subsequently on March 6, 2015, the Chief issued a Notice Of Second Emergency And Proposed Rulemaking , N0051986, 62 DCR 2803, which without comment or explanation,doubled the allowable ammunition a concealed pistol licensee could carry on his person. This regulation read, “A person issued a concealed carry license by the Chief, while carrying the pistol,shall not carry more ammunition than is required to fully load the pistol twice, and in no event shall that amount be greater than twenty (20) rounds of ammunition.”

Yes, NYSRPA v. Bruen (seeing lots of these cases now) is cited.

There appears to be nothing in the text, history or tradition of the Second Amendment that supports limiting the amount of ammunition that a person may carry for his or her self-defense.

Upon seeing that, I immediately thought of the Militia Act of 1792, which actually specified a minimum amount of ammunition to be carried, not a maximum. And very much more than a single loading of the firearm (also required).

Sure enough, Heller knows that. As I continued reading, I saw this.

What regulations did exist around the time of the founding of the SecondAmendment required Americans to be armed as detailed above and required militia members to be equipped with aminimum amount of ammunition.

Here’s the relevant section of the Militia Act.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

So the only historical and traditional precedent is for a minimum of 44 rounds; 2.2 times the arbitrary maximum that DC imposed. Or 22 times the amount needed to “fully load the [musket of the day] twice.”

[Correction: See comments below. That’s 24 cartridges if the militia had a musket, or 20 rounds if he had a rifle; not a total of 44. I apologize for misreading that.]

I rather hope this goes to the Supreme Court, since it provide a nationwide — not just the District of the District of Columbia — judicial precedent to argue against magazine limits (Hey, California…).

The DC District Court is going to hate this. It has generally been very supportive of DC’s rights-infringements, but NYSRPA v. Bruen is very, very clear.

Well done, Mr. Heller.

 

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

Auto Key Card: Motion to Dismiss

Here’s another important Second Amendment case to watch.

The case is US v. Matthew Raymond Hoover. Hoover was arrested and charged with an NFA violation; specifically that he was selling Auto Key Cards, pictures of parts that could be assembled into a “lightning link,” and subsequently installed in an AR-pattern rifle converting it into a machinegun. Others have been similarly charged for selling pictures.

Every news outlet that included pictures of the Auto Key Card in their reports should also be watching this case.

Hoover has moved to dismiss the charges in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen.

“[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The Government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.'”

Having explained the reasoning of NYSRPA v. Bruen to the court, they demonstrate the applicability to this case.

Further, the TAF’s decision that the tchothke at issue — a stainless steel card with some lines lightly thereupon engraved — was a machinegun came completely by administrative fiat, absent even notice and comment. Our Nation’s history and tradition does not, and cannot, support a finding that an alleged drawingof a part is that part merely because an elected bureaucrat unilaterally willed it to be.

I was just discussing this morning the fact that the NFA of 1934 was completely unprecedented in prior legislation. Because the applicability of NYSRPA v. Bruen to the NFA is extremely obvious.

However, since they mentioned an “elected bureaucrat unilaterally” usurping Congress to make their own “laws,” I would also have cited West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Supreme Court slapped down the EPA for doing exactly that.

I can’t see an honest court upholding these charges in view of NYSRPA v. Bruen. But we have a major problem with American courts, in that respect. So I won’t be terribly surprised if this ends up going to SCOTUS eventually. For a change, and elimination of federal bureaucratic power and abuse, as dramatic as tossing the NFA, this pretty much has to go the the Supremes.

Added: I almost missed it, but this is one of the Firearms Policy Coalition‘s cases. It’s another example of why I’ve long believed they deserve the support of those believe in the Second Amendment.

 

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

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
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
Academics, gun control, Law, Media, Politics, Rights, SCOTUS, So Much Stupid!

Just Once, I Want To See An Honest “Gun Control” Poll

2 Comments

Our bipartisan gang-rape Senators are trying to force a vote next week on the proposed package of new rights infringements despite the troubling fact that there is still no actual Senate bill filed.

I guess we have to pass it so we can see what’s in it.

But that lack of information isn’t stopping pollsters trying to claim support for the “bill.” Republican pollster Neil Newhouse alleges that 84% of gun-owning Americans support the imaginary-to-date legislation.

Oh, really? Let’s take a look at that poll. I see a few problems.

To start, they only polled those stupid enough to admit to a random, anonymous caller that they have at least one firearm in the home. But it’s much worse than that.

Respondents in the telephone portion of this survey were called from a national list of registered voters, and respondents in the online portion were drawn from a national panel of registered voters.

The caller might be anonymous, but anyone foolish enough to participate wasn’t. They started with a list of names and phone numbers of specific identified voters. Participants just told strangers who can match their “Yes, I have portable valuables in the house” answers to names and physical addresses.

Gee, what else did the pollsters ask about?

Do you have a large screen television?

Do you own easily pawned jewelry?

Do you own a nice laptop computer?

What time do you leave your home for the day?

So now we’ve limited that 84% to a pool of gullible fools.

As always in these things, the polling questions are a mess.

A mandatory waiting period on all purchases of semi-automatic guns, like the AR-15, by people under 21, so that everyone who purchases a semi-automatic gun must wait a certain number of days before taking the gun home.

That wording is going to mislead known fools into thinking that’s only a waiting period for AR-pattern firearm purchases. As best I can tell from press releases — lacking an actual bill to review — that it would apply to all centerfire semi-automatic firearms.

Then they could ask what other Constitutionally [used to be] protected rights they think should be restricted to those over 21.

Should the exercise of free speech be limited to those over 21?

Should voting be limited to those over 21?

Should the right to a trial and jury of your peers to be limited to those over 21?

Moving on…

Requiring background checks on all gun sales, including between strangers at gun shows and online. Gun sales between family, friends and hunters would be exempted from background checks.

Nothing I’ve see suggests any exemption for friends and hunters is in the deal. But even if they were exempted, I’d much rather see the question phrased differently. “Requiring background checks on all gun sales, including between strangers at gun shows and online. The check would require seller and buyer to travel to a licensed firearm dealer, and complete a form 4473 giving the ATF your name, address, gender, birth date, and race, creating a permanent searchable record of your purchase. During the waiting period, the dealer would take physical possession of the firearm. After the waiting period is complete, only then would you return to the dealer to obtain the property for which you already paid. Oh, and you have to pay extra for this dubious privilege.”

Next.

Increased funding for states to implement and strengthen so called “red flag” laws, which gives family or law enforcement a way to petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from someone who is exhibiting violent or unstable behavior.

Nope. Current law already allows that. What “red flag” laws do is expand the pool of people who can request removal, and — wait for it — do so without giving the accused a hearing — and the opportunity to face his accuser — before the taking.

I’d ask that: “Increased funding for states to implement and strengthen so called “red flag” laws, which violate federal law on due process, and the TRUAX Supreme Court ruling, to ensure that gun owners do not get a court hearing before their property is stolen.”

And the return of the “boyfriend loophole.

Prohibiting any person from purchasing or owning firearms who has been convicted of domestic violence against their boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse or significant other.

Perpetuating the lie. As phrased, that is already what the Lautenberg Amendment did decades ago. This new bit slips in the alleged “boyfriend loophole;” what closing that loophole really does is to expand the definition of boy/girlfriend from a significant romantic relationship to he picked me up in a bar for a one night stand thirty years ago. I’d probably mention that this specifically includes minor misdemeanor offenses, not just felonies.

The remaining questions pertain to school security, notably armed guards.

Support increased funding for public schools to have armed security guards on school property.

Aside from the curious omission of private school security, I’d suggest that’s insufficient. Given the notable lack of police action at Columbine, Parkland, and Uvalde, they should slide in some penalties for cops who don’t do anything but treat the event like a unscheduled coffee break.

Ah, well. I’m just dreaming. Short of winning lottery jackpot, and commissioning my own national polls, we will never see an honest victim disarmament poll.

 

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, SCOTUS

Fourth Circuit Didn’t get The Memo

2 Comments

I’m not sure why The Gun Feed just picked up this 2017 story. But so long as they have, let’s look at some judicial stupidity. It never hurts to be ready to argue the next — inevitable — infringement case.

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules
“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

First, the assertion that HELLER “explicitly excluded” Second Amendment protection of “assault weapons” is such a gross misstatement of the decision that I can only consider King’s claim to be a blatant, intentional lie.

If it is indeed the case, as the District believes, that the number of guns contributes to the number of gun-related crimes, accidents, and deaths, then, although there may be less restrictive, less effective substitutes for an outright ban, there is no less restrictive equivalent of an outright ban.

HELLER found that less restrictive measures than an outright ban must be considered. Note especially that HELLER overturned the District’s outright ban on handguns. For the terminally clueless, they’re were specifying strict scrutiny.

At least dissenting Judge William Traxler got it.

“For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand.”

Yes; strict scrutiny, to weigh whether any lesser restriction than an outright ban would suffice to meet the government’s alleged interest.

But let us turn our attention to the other factor that King and the Fourth missed.

“Weapons of war” are the only class of weapons that the US Supreme Court HAS ruled to be specifically protected by the Second Amendment.

MILLER, 1939
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Required. And “common use” — note that the short-barreled shotgun test in question in MILLER specified common military use, not sporting use — would seem to apply to 20 MILLION AR-pattern weapons of the sort this very Court called “weapons of war.”

Common, militia-suitable arms.

It appears to me that ten injustices on the Fourth Circuit needed to be impeached; for sheer incompetence, if not outright malfeasance.

 

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