Seventh Circuit Denies Further Review in the Case of Bevis Versus Naperville
BY Herschel Smith
1 year ago
So here is Mark Smith. He takes a fairly realistic view of things.
Here is Washington Gun Law, where he takes a slightly better view of what’s possible, perhaps too rosy.
Here is Jared in an inexplicably optimistic view of things.
So I set each up with the little preview because I think Jared may miss the point. This was a case seeking a preliminary injunction, and no final ruling has been made. I think the other two analyses are a bit closer to the truth.
I think it will be hard to get SCOTUS review of this because they are just that stolid and slow to react – and also because of the chief justice. To be sure, this was seeking a preliminary injunction, but it must be remembered that the decisions already written on this assesses the probability of success before these courts.
They may delay the final rulings for another two or three years, or more, but there won’t be another outcome than the one you’ve already witnessed. So even if they don’t, it makes perfect sense for the SCOTUS to take this up now. One wonders what they’re waiting for – perhaps another supreme court justice to die with a pillow over his face like Scalia?
Judge Frank Easterbrook is a so-called “law and order conservative.” Let me translate for you. That’s the same thing as the communists on the alleged other side of the isle. Just like AG Barr, who argued in defense of Lon Horiuchi.
In America, it’s always easy to detect a communist. Just look at his position on the second amendment.
On December 12, 2023 at 2:26 am, Nolan Parker said:
Everyone takes the Oath. Protect and Defend the Constitution.
And then they propose legislation that is counter To the Constitution, get it through, working Against the very principles that they said they would defend.
Why aren’t they required to note exactly where in the Constitution the authority for the legislation they propose is? Seems like They just Keep writing laws,and frankly, my pasture feels a lot smaller than when I was a kid and old farts like me had a rifle rack in the back window of the truck. Every time I turn around, it’s like some asshole shoots another fence line across behind me.
The regular people rejoice when the kid says Wal-Mart.
The globalists teach their little monsters to say
Incrementalism.
On December 13, 2023 at 3:16 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “In America, it’s always easy to detect a communist. Just look at his position on the second amendment.”
If it wasn’t for the Muslims, Chairman Mao of the People’s Republic of China, a.k.a. Communist China, would rank as the prolific mass-murder in human history. Some historians place the number exterminated by Chairman Mao and the party as high as seventy million people.
And what did Mao have to say about firearms? Back in the 1930s, he said “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” which is the part of the quote many readers of history know. But he went on to say, “The party must always command the gun so that the gun can never command the party…”
Wherever and whenever communists take power they sooner or later move to take control of the enforcement arms of the state, i.e., the police and the military, in other words the guys with the guns. There are not too many “sure things” in life, but this is one of them: As sure as the sun comes up in the morning, this is what the communists do.
They also enact harsh methods of gun control and often ban private ownership of firearms altogether. Only those who work for the state and the regime are permitted firearms.
One of the foremost scholars of mass murder and genocide was the late Dr. R.J. Rummel, a political scientist who devoted much of his career to researching these subjects. His work is too lengthy to summarize entirely here, but one of his most-important findings was that genocidal regimes often act according to a more-or-less predictable progression or series of steps over a period of time as they build toward committing their heinous acts. And one of these steps is banning private ownership of firearms and/or other weapons of self-defense.
And sure enough, if we examine history, we see that this is for the most part true. The Ottoman Turks banned ownership of firearms before the Armenian genocide, Hitler did it before the Final Solution, Stalin and Mao did it in their respective regimes, as did Castro, Pol Pot and Idi Amin, just to name a few.
Here in the United States, one of the reasons we have never suffered such an atrocity and horror is our tradition of citizens bearing arms.
Switzerland saw its next-door neighbor, Germany, become embroiled in not one but two world wars, the second of which included genocidal acts against enemies of the national socialist regime. Yet, there was no Holocaust on Swiss soil. Why? In part because the Swiss have a centuries-old tradition of citizen ownership and mastery of firearms.
And tiny Finland, when she was invaded by Stalin’s USSR in the “Winter War” (November 1939-March 1940), give her giant neighbor a badly-bloodied nose before weight of numbers finally told. This was so primarily because the Finns are also a nation of riflemen.