Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Yeah, I hate to have to think like this, but my first thought was “How convenient.”  It’s the FedGov’s fault that we think like this.

As for the “mentally ill,” I don’t like the supposed “yellow flag” laws in Maine and how the NRA and SAF panders to that side.  I don’t believe in anything laws, much less disarmament laws.

Of course, I agree with the new Speaker Johnson.

On Thursday, Johnson appeared on Fox News, where he was asked about the murder of 18 people in Lewiston, Maine. The Louisiana Republican said it was not the right time to consider legislation and defended the Second Amendment.

“At the end of the day, the problem is the human heart. It’s not guns, it’s not the weapons,” Johnson said. “We have to protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves. That’s the Second Amendment and that’s why our party stands so strongly for that.”

The Biden White House, for its part, has renewed a call for gun legislation after the shooting in Lewiston. And it wasted little time hitting Johnson for standing in the way.

Gun violence is “not the result of an imagined deficiency in the hearts of the American people …

That isn’t what he said.  He said nothing about a deficiency in the heart of the American people.  He said something about “human heart.”  As for what the Holy Writ says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”  That applies to everyone.

This was a killing zone because men didn’t carry weapons.  Folks, there’s such a thing as non-permissive carry.  Do it when necessary.

In order to understand what he’s saying, you have to watch it all from beginning to end.

I would also point out that while he focused on who has the burden of proof, and it should always be on the state, if his example is correct, a complete ban wouldn’t have an effect anyway if the example has to do with carry rather than ownership

That may be the second reason the “dangerous and unusual” test must be pressed to the state, not combined into a textual analysis of the 2A.

In order to understand my remark, you’ll have to watch the video.

Here is the ruling.

While most of us wouldn’t just willingly turn over firearms to the government if they came knocking, it’s important to understand the basis behind this righteous refusal.

Mark does a good job teaching you things that are good to know.

Can be found here.  He writes it along with many other professors of law.

I’ve skimmed through it but haven’t had time to study it in detail.

This is long and complicated “inside baseball” stuff, except with the court system.  Watch his two videos, or if you don’t have the time, watch only the last one.

BLUF: The Ninth Circuit intends to drop their pants and moon the supreme court.

As usual, Mark does a great job.

Here is the ruling.  There are still good men left in America.

There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme. Our federal government and most states impose no limits17 and in the states where limits are imposed, there is no consensus. Delaware landed on a 17-round magazine limit.18 Illinois and Vermont picked limits of 15 rounds for handguns and 10 rounds for a rifles.19 Colorado went with a 15-round limit for handguns and rifles, and a 28-inch tube limit for shotguns.20 New York tried its luck at a 7-round limit; that did not work out.21 New Jersey started with a 15-round limit and then reduced the limit to 10-rounds.22 The fact that there are so many different numerical limits demonstrates the arbitrary nature of magazine capacity limits.

In a stealth return to the interest balancing test rejected by Heller and Bruen, the State ostensibly justifies its magazine limits by deeming the smaller magazines “well-suited” for its citizens.23 Suitability, in turn, is based on concocted statistics about what a hypothetical average person needs to defend against an attacker or attackers in an average self-defense situation. Based on this hypothetical statistically average case scenario, the State permits its citizen to have a gun, but the State decides the number of rounds in the gun that it finds suitable.24

In so doing, the State denies a citizen the federal constitutional right to use common weapons of their own choosing for self-defense. There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers.25 Yet, under this statute, the State says “too bad.” It says, if you think you need more than 10 chances to defend yourself against criminal attackers, you must carry more magazines. Or carry more bullets to hand reload and fumble into your small magazine while the attackers take advantage of your pause. On the other hand, you can become a criminal, too. So, the previously law-abiding California citizen who buys and keeps at her bedside a nationally popular Glock 17 (with its standard 17-round magazine) becomes the criminal, because the State dictates that a gun with a 17-round magazine is not well-suited for home defense.

Do you feel the sarcasm dripping from his pen?

Because Stephen Stamboulieh is a stud, he got the restraining order on behalf of the GOA against the governor and state police of NM in her gun ban edict.

Here it is (121113193136).

The only thing I’d say is that the case seems simple enough to me that the judge should have vacated the edict altogether and rendered it null and void, and enjoined them from enforcing it – ever.

He did indicate that the plaintiffs were likely to win the case on the merits, but there are unfortunate phrases in the ruling, like this.

Although the State of New Mexico raises important safety concerns, at this stage it fails to demonstrate that the public safety concerns overcome the public’s interest in preventing constitutional violations.  At a fuller hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, the State of New Mexico may present more detailed information about how public safety strongly weighs against issuing a preliminary injunction because of the dangers and safety concerns associated with firearms. However, given Bruen’s clarity that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2122, the Court concludes that issuing a TRO to prevent the violation of a constitutional right would be in the public interest.

The judge is still, even now after Bruen told him not to do it, trying to play a public interest balancing act.  As Stephen told him in his brief, that balancing judgment was made when the second amendment was ratified.  It’s unconstitutional to try to do it again.

However, this is a win, and I’ll take a win.  We’ll have to leave the rest to Stephen.  And God.  Because Stephen is doing God’s work.