- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Posts Tagged Supreme Court
Knives Covered Under Second Amendment
From The Volokh Conspiracy:
- Under the Supreme Court’s standard in District of Columbia v. Heller, knives are Second Amendment “arms†because they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,†including self-defense.
- There is no knife that is more dangerous than a modern handgun; to the contrary, knives are much less dangerous. Therefore, restrictions on carrying handguns set the upper limit for restrictions on carrying knives.
- Prohibitions on carrying knives in general, or of particular knives, are unconstitutional. For example, bans of knives that open in a convenient way (e.g., switchblades, gravity knives, and butterfly knives) are unconstitutional. Likewise unconstitutional are bans on folding knives that, after being opened, have a safety lock to prevent inadvertent closure.
Former Supreme Court Justice Doesn’t Understand Simple Difference Between Firearms
All that schooling and he can’t grasp a simple concept between automatic and semi-automatic. It must be willful ignorance because someone that smart should be able to understand.
From CSPAN:
DOJ Argues Treaties Trump Constitution
From The Washington Examiner:
Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
ATF Prosecution of Legal Gun Purchases Goes to Supreme Court
From Rep. Steve Stockman:
Federal law does not prohibit one eligible person from buying a gun for another eligible person. It is perfectly legal to buy a gun for an eligible gunowner. The law only prohibits transfers to ineligible people. Neither Abramski nor his uncle was ineligible.
Handgun Ban for Adults 18-20, Goes to Supreme Court
From SFGate.com:
The lawsuit— which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court — seeks to end a federal prohibition on the sale of handguns by federally licensed dealers to people aged 18 through 20.
Click here for the NRA’s take.
Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dogs
From Threat Level:
The home-sniff case, also arriving from the Florida Supreme Court, tests a decade-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent in which the justices ruled that police need a warrant to use thermal-imaging devices outside a house to detect marijuana-growing operations, saying it amounted to a search. In that case, the high court ruled in 2001 that “rapidly advancing technology†threatens the core of the Fourth Amendment “right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.â€
Supreme Court to hear arguments over AZ immigration law
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 4/Dec/2010 17:12
PHOENIX — The impassioned debate over the nation’s immigration policy takes center stage at the Supreme Court Wednesday in a dispute over an Arizona law that punishes employers who knowingly hire workers illegally in the U.S.
Arizona’s employer sanctions law has been used just three times in three years, but business interests and civil rights groups, backed by the Obama administration, have banded together to argue that only the federal government may enforce immigration laws.
The outcome in this case also could signal how the court would handle the controversial and more expansive Arizona immigration enforcement law, known as SB1070, that the administration challenged and a federal judge blocked key components this summer.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/12/04/5579100-court-to-hear-arguments-over-ariz-immigration-law
Supreme Court: Second Amendment doesn’t only apply to a well-regulated militia, but to individual citizens.
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Opinion on 6/Aug/2010 17:35
By Tamara Dietrich
For many of us, the Supreme Court’s finding that Americans have a fundamental right to own guns for self-defense in their own homes wasn’t ground-breaking — it was common sense.
Outright community bans on firearms or handguns, such as those in Chicago and the District of Columbia, both struck down by the high court in separate challenges, were well-intentioned but wrong. And ineffective — gun violence rates soared in those communities.
Interestingly, last week was the first time justices ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t only apply to a well-regulated militia, but to individual citizens.
Count me among those not surprised at the decision, but at the 233 years it took to get it.
Elena Kagan will be a solid vote against the Second Amendment if confirmed
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, Opinion on 30/Jul/2010 17:42
by Luke O’Dell, Director of Operations, National Association for Gun Rights“Just a few days ago, Senator Graham (R – SC) voted with the gun-grabbers on the Judiciary committee for confirmation of Elena “not sympathetic to your gun rights†Kagan to the Supreme Court.
That kind of defeatist pandering makes me sick, especially when it’s clear that Kagan will bring an ardently anti-gun agenda to the Supreme Court.
Elena Kagan will be a solid vote against the Second Amendment if confirmed, but they don’t want the public to see that for themselves.
We know that:
– Kagan said she is “not sympathetic†to the right to keep and bear arms.
– Kagan supports gun licensing and registration.
– Kagan dismisses the notion that the Second Amendment deserves “unlimited protection against governmental regulation.â€
– Kagan personally drafted an executive order for Bill Clinton that banned the importation of semi-automatic firearms.
On top of another Graham betrayal of conservatives, Indiana Republican Richard Lugar is planning to join Graham in support of Kagan’s nomination.
Make no mistake Lugar and Graham are complicit in selling out YOUR Second Amendment rights.”
http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=cc21ad0c9d870c2b2fe42435b97dbbf9&CID=6676914293&ch=96FB60EFEC0F61A732859CF4545DF55C
A soldier’s Perspective: Disappointed In SCOTUS
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 19/Jul/2010 19:44
“While the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment in striking down the ban on handguns in Chicago, it would be an understatement to say that I’m disappointed at the narrow margin in which it was done.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I think it really goes to show that the Supreme Court has become more a political entity, upholding partisan beliefs and placing them before the language of the Constitution. This goes for both sides. Effectively, the four justices that ruled in the minority believe that the Second Amendment should just be abolished.”
Supreme Court: Americans have right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 28/Jun/2010 22:13
Otis McDonald said he joined a federal lawsuit to challenge Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban because he wants a handgun at home to protect himself from gangs.
“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, expanding the conservative court’s embrace of gun rights since John Roberts became Chief Justice.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges.”
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/28/4575970-justices-extend-gun-owner-rights-nationwide
Elena Kagan: tried to hamper military recruiting at Harvard
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 25/Jun/2010 23:06
Some of the toughest questions Elena Kagan will face in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings this coming week will focus on her actions during the military recruiting controversy while she was dean of Harvard Law School.
In 2004, Kagan barred military recruiters from using the law school’s office of career services to meet with students interested in military service.
To many Americans – including those with family and friends on overseas deployments – any effort to restrict military recruitment endangers US service members and the country.
“The Army was stonewalled at Harvard. Phone calls and emails went unanswered,†an Army recruiter said in a March 2005 memo. “The [career services director] refused to inform students that we were coming to recruit and the [career services director] refused to collect resumes or provide any other assistance.â€
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0625/How-Elena-Kagan-worked-to-limit-military-recruiting-at-Harvard
Supreme Court Guns Case Preview
From: Fox News
The battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment returns to the Supreme Court Tuesday when the justices hear a case that is a follow-up to their historic ruling in 2008 that individuals have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On Sunday, Fox’s Shannon Bream spoke with a couple of key figures in the gun rights debate: lawyer Alan Gura and Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Gura argued and won D.C. v. Heller two years ago and will appear before the Court Tuesday.
From: Huffington Post
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says it will take up a challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns, opening the way for a ruling that could set off a vigorous new campaign to roll back state and local gun controls across the nation.
Victory for gun-rights proponents in the Chicago case is considered likely, even by supporters of gun control, in the latest battle in the nation’s long and often bitter dispute over the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A ruling against the city’s outright ban could lead to legal challenges to less-restrictive laws across the country that limit who can own guns, whether firearms must be registered and how they should be stored.
The case is to be argued early next year.