Archive for the 'Supreme Court' Category

In the VanDerStok case.

The court briefs are here and here.

My bet is that the DOJ lawyers and ATF hooligans are so dishonest that even if they had known this (and perhaps they did) they would not have corrected the record unless called out on it.

Me neither.

They’ve run for years from this issue like scared little girls and will continue to do so.

Source.

The Bay States’ already strict gun laws were made all the more stringent on Thursday when the governor signed sweeping new gun regulations into law, creating live fire requirements for new license holders, and banning most “assault-style firearms.”

A statewide registration system was also added among a broad range of other provisions.

Jim Wallace, the Executive Director of the Gun Owners Action League, told The Boston Herald that GOAL will challenge the law in court.

According to Gov. Maura Healey, An Act Modernizing Firearms Laws is meant to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which overturned state laws making it more difficult to obtain a firearms license, and as a reaction to the growing prevalence of so-called ghost guns.

As a response to Bruen, they tell the supreme court to sod off. They’ll do what they want to do.

And after similar laws in Maryland, Illinois and elsewhere, the supreme court is still running from the issue like scared little girls.

Email directly from our friend Stephen Stamboulieh, the SCOTUS has finally ruled on the bump stock ban, siding with the fifth circuit.

Here is the ruling.

I really, really don’t like Alito’s concurrence where he invites Congress to “act.” So apparently the SCOTUS decided the case purely on the basis of statutory law rather than constitutionality (caveat: I haven’t read the entire decision in detail).

So much for “every terrible implement of the soldier.”

This is good news today, but the shot over the bow by Alito puts any future review of the constitutionality of the NFA in question.

UPDATE: David Codrea weighs in.

UPDATE #2: It looks like I’m not the only one who noticed Alito’s opinion. Now. Watch the House and Senate do just that.

On another note, Sotomayor is no mechanical engineer: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the dissent. “A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.”

Most of the reasons he gives in this video amount to one thing: the justices have either sided with the controllers or aren’t happy with the nature of the ruling that would come down if the SCOTUS took the issues up.

Thus, they will allow the lower courts to beat them up over this issue and tell them they are wrong. Quite literally, the lower courts have bullied the supreme court into ignoring a major infringement of constitutionally guaranteed rights. It’s the most shameful thing I have ever witnessed as an American citizen in my entire life.

Source.

And here is Mark Smith to explain. But you know, it seems that the conservatives on the court are the only ones that have manners and refuse to consider cases that haven’t been fully decided in the lower courts.

As if that’s a requirement or something. Sotomayor apparently has no problem bossing the lower courts around on her own.

I still think it all comes down to rank cowardice.

Source.

‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’

Here she is.

She has a “rich cultural heritage.”

Judge Darkeh is a child of an immigrant father and a first-generation American mother. Her father, George Komla Darkeh, was born and raised in Ghana, West Africa. “He came to New York in the 1960s to attend Columbia University and to work at the United Nations,” she said. Her mother, Shirley Elise (nee Lowe) Darkeh was born in Brooklyn after her family immigrated from St. Vincent and Barbados. Judge Darkeh’s parents met a party in NYC, at the home of a UN diplomat. Two years later they married, started a family and moved to Long Island. 

“I was born in the United States — Brooklyn, New York, in fact — and I am proud to be an American, but I have always understood that America is a rich and vibrant place because of all of the people, from different places, who settled here and who expressed who they are and where they came from in their everyday lives.

But with no respect for God-given rights to self defense or the liberties of a free man. That sort of cultural heritage.

Now, reddit/Firearms gives us good reason to try her for treason.

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges’ orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents.”

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958) Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it”. See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia,19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

28 is U.S. Code § 454. Practice of law by justices and judges

Any justice or judge appointed under the authority of the United States who engages in the practice of law is guilty of a high misdemeanor.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908.)

The USDC are legislative courts typically proceeding in legislativemode. See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922) (the USDC IS NOT a true United States court established under Article III!); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 91, 132, 152, 171, 251, 458, 461, 1367.

Legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts. See Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930); Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932); O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).

But all of that relies on good men doing righteousness, and that isn’t going to happen in New York. If the SCOTUS had any guts, they would have dealt with this sort of denial of the 2A long, long ago, and would be dealing with it currently with the AWBs in Illinois and Maryland. But they have no guts. They have run scared of this issue for a very long time.

Funny, that. Sotomayor has no problem telling the lower courts off when she wants to. It seems that everyone else on the supreme court is a coward.

It would be good if the SCOTUS had a way of censuring lower courts and judges, and perhaps they do. But they would have to actually exercise that prerogative, and it takes more than cowards to do that.

Finally, this touches fingers with the whole issue of immigrants and immigration, and how they don’t bring the same value system to America. They bring the value system from the country they left. This is especially dangerous when it’s a judge. It will just take more time to work its way through the process with immigrants who vote.

See the point?

Americans have been making their own firearms since the founding of the country. The SCOTUS needs to get this one right, or else they relegate themselves to the trash heap of history. The communists already disregard what they don’t like out of the SCOTUS. When they lose the rest of the base, it’s a short hop and a skip to everyone just completely ignoring them. They have no reason to go to work with that kind of reputation. They should just stay home.

You’d think that at least her clerks would have prepared her better than this.

And here’s Justice Jackson: “And when, you know, ‘function’ is defined, it’s really not about the operation of the thing. It’s about what it can achieve, what it’s being used for. So I see Congress as putting function in this. The function of this trigger is to cause this kind of damage, 800 rounds a second or whatever.”

Not even the Navy’s Phalanx is capable of that rate of fire (4500 Rounds Per Minute).

Maybe there’s a quad gun that can approach that rate, but still, 4500 RPM × 4 = 18000, and 18000 RPM / 60 seconds per minutes = 300 RPM. So, I don’t know of anything that can accomplish 800 rounds per second.

Can you imagine trying to hold a gun on target at that rate of fire?

But hey, I want one!

Amazing.

Justice Barrett asks about the difference between bump firing and bump stocks

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Justice Jackson says guns with bump stocks can fire 800 rounds a second

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

The government says that a rifle without a bump stock can only shoot about 60 rounds per minute

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Jerry Miculek is laughing.

Justice Jackson asks why the NFA doesn't ban guns that can fire as fast as machine guns. Cargill says because that's not what the law says

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Justice Kagan says that with a bump stock, you can hold the trigger and bullets come out. Cargill says that's incorrect; bump stocks don't alter the trigger at all

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Justice Kagan says that with a bump stock, you can hold the trigger and bullets come out. Cargill says that's incorrect; bump stocks don't alter the trigger at all

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Justice Jackson is asking why the chemical reaction after the trigger is pulled isn't the single function that causes the gun to fire automatically. Like all of Jackson's other arguments, Cargill says that is also incorrect

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024

Good Lord! So the FedGov is relying not just on the communists on the court, but the general stupidity as well.