Posts Tagged scotus

Media Uses Headlines About Rahimi Case To Create A Narrative

From Ammoland:

The dominant media headlines ignore the crux of the case. In headline after headline, they claim the case is whether people who commit domestic violence can be disarmed. Nothing in the case challenges the power of the government to disarm people who are convicted of domestic violence. Rahimi was never convicted of domestic violence.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Rahimi Case Argued At The Supreme Court

From Reason:

The government can disarm “dangerous individuals” without violating the Second Amendment, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court on Tuesday. J. Matthew Wright, the lawyer arguing the other side of United States v. Rahimi, agreed with that general principle. But he did not agree that the federal law Prelogar was defending, which criminalizes gun possession by people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders, fits within that tradition.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court To Hear Bump Stock Case

From The Truth About Guns:

Time to lay in a heavier supply of popcorn. Today the Supreme Court granted cert in Cargill v. Garland, the case challenging the Trump era bump stock ban. The about face by the ATF following the Las Vegas mass shooting came at the direction of the Trump administration. ATF, which had previously approved sales of bump fire stocks as legal accessories used regulatory fiat to do a 180 and reclassify them as machine guns.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Rahimi Case Has Serious Consequences

From The Federalist:

The question before the court is: What is the standard of evidence needed to strip someone of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms? People lose their right to a gun when convicted of felonies and some violent misdemeanors. But should they lose that right after a mere noncriminal, civil decision — in the absence of a public hearing and a lawyer? 

, , , , ,

No Comments

Fishing Industry Case Could Restrict ATF’s Power

From Washington Gun Law:

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

FPC Tells Supreme Court Chevron Deference Is Unconstitutional

From Ammoland:

“Chevron violates Article III by transferring from the judiciary to the executive the ultimate interpretative authority to say what the law is,” argues the brief. “It violates Article I by incentivizing Congress to abdicate its legislative duties and delegate legislative authority to the executive. As a result, Chevron accumulates legislative, executive, and judicial powers in a single branch of government—which the Founders considered the very definition of tyranny.”

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court May Take Case That Could Overturn Jan 6 Convictions

From PJ Media:

The law in question sentences a guilty party to up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document,” or “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Lang is questioning whether the Sarbanes-Oxley statute fits the behavior of hundreds of rioters.

Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in response to financial malfeasance in the 2002 bankruptcies of telecom giant Worldcom and Enron, an energy company based in Houston. Lang argues that the obstruction defined in Sarbanes-Oxley bears no relationship to the violence that occurred on January 6, 2021.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court Takes Restraining Order Case

From Ammoland:

The Supreme Court, on the last day available this session, June 30, 2023, agreed to hear a Second Amendment case, United States v. Rahimi.

This is not good news for Second Amendment supporters, but it is also not terrible news. It signals a willingness in the Court to tolerate some Biden administration resistance to recognizing Second Amendment rights as put forward in the Bruen decision last year.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court To Hear Case On Domestic Violence Offenders’ Gun Rights

From Bearing Arms:

In its last conference before heading out for summer recess, the Supreme Court granted cert to U.S. v. Rahimi on Friday; setting up a fight over the scope of the Court’s history, text, and tradition test spelled out in last year’s Bruen decision.

, , ,

No Comments

Rare Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Supports Individual Rights

From Reason:

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that the government violated the Constitution when it took possession of Geraldine Tyler’s condo over an overdue property tax bill, auctioned the home, and pocketed the proceeds in excess of what she actually owed.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court Dismisses Gun Cases

From Bearing Arms:

For the third time this year the Supreme Court has rejected a case dealing with the ATF’s administratively imposed ban on bump stocks, denying cert in a challenge to the ban brought by a group of federally licensed firearm retailers and several individuals who argued that the ban was an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause by forcing existing bump stock owners to destroy them without any kind of compensation on the part of the federal government.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

NYT Shocked Public Defenders Support Second Amendment

From Reason:

A group of public defense lawyer organizations recently joined forces with Second Amendment advocates to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate a New York gun control scheme. Now that the scheme has been successfully overturned in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that the Second Amendment includes the right “to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” public defenders have begun citing the Court’s ruling to protect the rights of their clients.

This state of affairs has left some New York Times journalists scratching their heads in surprise. As a recent Times headline put it: “Unlikely Fans of Supreme Court Ruling on Guns: Public Defenders.” The accompanying article describes the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders, and other groups as “unexpected” allies of the gun rights movement.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Bruen Could Be The Beginning of Striking Down Gun Laws

From The Truth About Guns:

In winning this case in front of SCOTUS, “may issue” laws — laws under which states and municipalities have entirely subjective rules under which they may or may not issue concealed carry permits — have been deemed unconstitutional. This opens up the door for going after unfair, subjective, and otherwise not equally-applied gun control laws all across the country.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Gun Banners Want Power

From The Federalist:

Why do Democrats despise the Second Amendment so much that they want to effectively banish a branch of the government over it? Because it strips them of their ability to control everything and accumulate power.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

The Bruen Decision Was Just The Beginning

From The Truth About Guns:

There are no longer tiered levels of examination or scrutiny. If the law in question materially limits the right to keep and bear arms, then, with remarkably few exceptions, under Bruen the law will be an infringement on Second Amendment rights.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments