Dean Weingarten has a good find at Ammoland.
Judge Eduardo Ramos, the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, has issued an Opinion & Order that a ban on stun guns is constitutional. A New York State law prohibits the private possession of stun guns and tasers; a New York City law prohibits the possession and selling of stun guns. Judge Ramos has ruled these laws do not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Let's briefly…… [read more]
I’ve conveyed my puzzlement at folks who would sit on the couch rather than go vote, and then worry over whether what they have in their homes is illegal.
Anyway, I like his style. I just can’t stand the overly-emotion presentations elsewhere, but here he gives you the scoop without the drama.
I’m so thankful that my moral predilections don’t include defending the right of people like this to be here.
BREAKING: ICE has provided @FoxNews a list of the most egregious criminal aliens they've arrested during their surge in the sanctuary state of Minnesota, & it's the most disturbing list I've ever seen, including numerous convicted child rapists/sodomizers & ten convicted killers,… pic.twitter.com/xukxfLd4gZ
A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled that California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most parts of the state was unconstitutional.
A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided 2-1 with a gun owner in ruling that the state’s prohibition against open carry in counties with more than 200,000 people violated U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
About 95% of the population in California, which has had some of the nation’s strictest gun-control laws, live in counties of that size.
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who was appointed by Republican President Donald Trump, said the Democratic-led state’s law could not stand under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 landmark gun rights ruling.
That decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, was issued by the court’s 6-3 conservative super-majority and established a new legal test for firearms restrictions. The test said they must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
VanDyke, whose opinion on Friday was joined by another Trump appointee, said the latest case “unquestionably involves a historical practice — open carry — that predates ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.”
He noted that more than 30 states generally allow open carry. California itself allowed citizens to carry handguns openly and holstered for self-defense without penalty until 2012, he said.
“The historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition,” VanDyke said.
My position on open carry has never changed. I really don’t care what you think about it. For the state to dictate the manner in which a man must carry his weapons is tyranny.
I predict: (1) the state will appeal it to be heard en banc, or (2) Newsome’s LE and the California legislation will simply ignore the ruling, and because “conservatives” must obey the courts and tyrants never do and always get away with it, nothing will change.
Here I posed a question for Geissele Automatics: Will you do business with law enforcement in California now that they have passed a law that forbids the ownership of the subject weapons by all other citizens?
The comments are so laborious that I almost couldn’t make my way through them. I didn’t ask how best to deal with the new law, whether to rely on FFLs or try to navigate these waters alone? Or whether to stop supporting existing gun owners with parts? Or anything else of the sort. I asked a simple, easy to understand and easy to answer question.
The answer I got from Geissele answered every but the one I asked. They can continue to sell to law enforcement, or they can take Ronnie Barrett’s position. The choice seems simple enough to me.
Thank you for your reply. Of course, that’s one way to handle the issue. The other way is to follow in the footsteps of Ronnie Barrett.
Thank you for your reply. Of course, that's one way to handle the issue. The other way is to follow in the footsteps of Ronnie Barrett.https://t.co/5NzoJKMg3v
Mark’s theory: the DOJ is surreptitiously taking the unconstitutional side in order to drive this case to SCOTUS and get a ruling favorable to the second amendment.
My message to Mark. Stop it. Just stop it. Stop claiming that the DOJ is playing 4D chess. They are not. Pam Bondi has some lawyers running loose doing the bidding of the gun controllers because she (and Trump) is at heart a gun controller.
Besides, what about the possibility that the SCOTUS doesn’t grant certiorari and the district or appeals court agrees with the DOJ arguments? In that case, it becomes a case that can be referenced by other district and appeals courts, even if not binding.
This whole thing is stupid – that is, assuming that the DOJ is on our side. They have defended the NFA, and now federal knife bans. They are not on our side.
NEWAYGO COUNTY, MI – A couple deer hunting in a blind on private property are suing after a conservation officer interrupted their firearms opener.
They contend that the state Department of Natural Resources officer had no legal justification to enter their property, from adjacent private land, to check their hunting licenses – and potentially scared off deer in the process.
They said the conservation officer, Cameron Wright, trespassed on their property.
In general I understand the value of wildlife biologists monitoring herd size and setting tag limits in light of irresponsible hunters. There are a lot of irresponsible hunters out there.
But as I’ve stated before, the price for this value added is way too high. The open fields doctrine is clearly trespassing and we will follow this as best as I’m able to see how it ends up. A number of states have already passed laws against the open fields doctrine.
“No response is required… Plaintiff is not entitled to compel the production of any record… This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction… Plaintiff is neither eligible for nor entitled to attorney’s fees [and] Plaintiff’s request is improper to the extent is it unduly burdensome…”
How dare you peasants demand to know how we determine whether we will grant you the opportunity to bow on your knees to us – “Kneel before Zod,” but only if we deign to give permission first.
It is a privilege, not a right, for us to condescend to your level.
Anyone from Geissele can drop by and correct this post if it is mistaken. In fact, if mistaken, I’ll correct the record with another post and laud their commitment to the second amendment.
But what this press release doesn’t say is that if Geissele can’t do business with everyone in California, they won’t do business with law enforcement either.
One day firearms manufacturers are going to have to buckle down and begin making moral decisions concerning their commitment to the second amendment, and liberty versus tyranny and the almighty dollar.
They are dead to me. So, too, with any other manufacturer who makes the same decision they did.
