Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

We in the second amendment community must be incrementalists. Now, where have I heard that before? Yes, I know I’ve heard that before.

The whole thing was an abortion, promulgated by Donald Trump, and a violation of both the second amendment and the NFA.  But I remain skeptical that they will overturn it because scary, scary, scary, ooooo, spooky …

LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court has granted the cert petitions in a lawsuit challenging the federal bump stock ban and a First Amendment lawsuit involving the NRA's speech. pic.twitter.com/lURyAGDFqL

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) November 3, 2023

Yeah, I hate to have to think like this, but my first thought was “How convenient.”  It’s the FedGov’s fault that we think like this.

As for the “mentally ill,” I don’t like the supposed “yellow flag” laws in Maine and how the NRA and SAF panders to that side.  I don’t believe in anything laws, much less disarmament laws.

Of course, I agree with the new Speaker Johnson.

On Thursday, Johnson appeared on Fox News, where he was asked about the murder of 18 people in Lewiston, Maine. The Louisiana Republican said it was not the right time to consider legislation and defended the Second Amendment.

“At the end of the day, the problem is the human heart. It’s not guns, it’s not the weapons,” Johnson said. “We have to protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves. That’s the Second Amendment and that’s why our party stands so strongly for that.”

The Biden White House, for its part, has renewed a call for gun legislation after the shooting in Lewiston. And it wasted little time hitting Johnson for standing in the way.

Gun violence is “not the result of an imagined deficiency in the hearts of the American people …

That isn’t what he said.  He said nothing about a deficiency in the heart of the American people.  He said something about “human heart.”  As for what the Holy Writ says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”  That applies to everyone.

This was a killing zone because men didn’t carry weapons.  Folks, there’s such a thing as non-permissive carry.  Do it when necessary.

In order to understand what he’s saying, you have to watch it all from beginning to end.

I would also point out that while he focused on who has the burden of proof, and it should always be on the state, if his example is correct, a complete ban wouldn’t have an effect anyway if the example has to do with carry rather than ownership

That may be the second reason the “dangerous and unusual” test must be pressed to the state, not combined into a textual analysis of the 2A.

In order to understand my remark, you’ll have to watch the video.

Here is the ruling.

While most of us wouldn’t just willingly turn over firearms to the government if they came knocking, it’s important to understand the basis behind this righteous refusal.

Mark does a good job teaching you things that are good to know.

Can be found here.  He writes it along with many other professors of law.

I’ve skimmed through it but haven’t had time to study it in detail.