Posts Tagged courts

NRA Carry Guard: Self Defense Insurance

About Carry Guard:

An armed encounter is likely to be the most stressful moment of someone’s life. We can do our best to avoid trouble, but bad things sometimes happen to good people. That’s why right behind your firearm, your second most important protection is a rock-solid carry policy.

NRA Carry Guard is a two-pronged program. It was created to provide insurance coverage to those who legally defend themselves with a firearm, and to offer an elite, one-stop training option. The insurance provides a comprehensive set of benefits and protection that will help spare gun owners from costly financial and legal consequences, even if they did everything right. The training was developed by an expert team of military and law enforcement veterans and focuses on the unique legal, mental and physical circumstances you must be prepared to face after pulling the trigger.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Upholding “Assault Weapon” Ban Could Backfire

From The Federalist:

The Supreme Court has refused to hear “assault weapon” cases in the past. However, previous cases were lower profile and the result of narrow readings, not the backwards interpretation exhibited in Kolbe. In its bravado, the Fourth Circuit may have crossed a bridge too far, sparking national debate and possibly forcing the issue to finally make it to the Supreme Court.

The Kolbe court justified their holding through a misplaced reliance on Heller’s discussion of weapons not protected by the Second Amendment: “dangerous and unusual weapons” and those “most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like.” This reliance was completely out of context, most obviously because the M-16 and its stablemates are machine guns, not in common lawful use by civilians anywhere. This is a far cry from the pedestrian semi-automatic weapons Maryland actually targeted.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Court Rules Gun Owners Are Dangerous and Forfeit Other Rights

From National Review:

So, if concealed-carry permit holders are presumptively dangerous, does this mean that they forfeit other constitutional rights? Wynn explained (approvingly) that under the majority’s reasoning they certainly do:

I see no basis — nor does the majority opinion provide any — for limiting our conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms are categorically dangerous to the Terry frisk inquiry. Accordingly, the majority decision today necessarily leads to the conclusion that individuals who elect to carry firearms forego other constitutional rights, like the Fourth Amendment right to have law enforcement officers “knock-and-announce” before forcibly entering homes. . . . Likewise, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms necessarily face greater restriction on their concurrent exercise of other constitutional rights, like those protected by the First Amendment.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

No Guns If You Have A Marijuana Card

From Reason.com:

Yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that banning gun sales to people who hold medical marijuana cards, whether or not they actually use marijuana, does not violate their Second Amendment rights. In reaching that conclusion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit relied on antiquated, scientifically unsupportable assumptions about the violent tendencies of cannabis consumers.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Circuit Judge To Students: Ignore Constitution

From Judge Richard Posner:

I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21stcentury. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Court Rules Illegal Aliens Have A Right To Own Firearms

From Breitbart:

The Second Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In a seminal 2008 case, the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms. On August 20, 2015, Chief Judge Diane Wood (a liberal appointee of Bill Clinton who was on Barack Obama’s short-list for the Supreme Court) wrote for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the panel could “see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that [illegal aliens] are excluded” from exercising Second Amendment rights.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Judge Rules In Favor Of Gun Rights On Behalf Of Gay Group

From LGBTQ Nation:

The group, which advocates for gay Americans to carry firearms, just won a major victory on Tuesday: a federal judge in Washington halted enforcement of a portion of the city’s strict gun law, ordering Washington DC police to stop requiring residents to demonstrate they have “a good reason to fear injury,” which he ruled places “an unconstitutional burden” on citizens’ right to bear arms.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Some Sanity From California Court on Internet Ammo Sales

From TheTruthAboutGuns.com:

The specific reason why the law was overturned isn’t because they were a violation of the Second Amendment (because what self respecting California judge would ever rule in favor of the 2A?). Instead the California Superior Court decision said the requirements were unconstitutionally vague. Thanks to the various pistol caliber carbines available as well as the pistol version of the AR-15 and the AK-47, it makes it impossible to actually define what a handgun caliber is.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments