Dean Weingarten has a good find at Ammoland.
Judge Eduardo Ramos, the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, has issued an Opinion & Order that a ban on stun guns is constitutional. A New York State law prohibits the private possession of stun guns and tasers; a New York City law prohibits the possession and selling of stun guns. Judge Ramos has ruled these laws do not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Let's briefly…… [read more]
This is his video explaining his dissent. I won’t like all of the articles where “legal experts” were aghast that he would do such a thing. I found it all quite amusing, but I won’t give them traffic for their stupidity.
What I did find most interesting is that the judge called out the ignorance of his fellow judges over video. He rocks. His fellow judges are jammed, and he comes out looking like the one who knows what he’s talking about.
But it simply could be that the other judges aren’t really that stupid and know what they’re doing. They’re just controllers at heart. Judge Van Dyke’s dissent video is still good medicine for this malfeasance.
I wouldn’t have been as nice and amiable as Judge Van Dyke. I would have engaged in name calling.
A controversial proposal to repeal a law that prevents people under age 21 from buying rifles and shotguns in Florida is positioned to go to the full House, but the issue remains on hold in the Senate. The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted 16-6 to approve the bill (HB 759), which would lower the minimum age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 21 to 18. Rep. Hillary Cassel, R-Dania Beach, joined Democrats in opposing the bill.
The Legislature and then-Gov. Rick Scott increased the minimum age for gun purchases to 21 after the 2018 mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 people. The House approved repeal bills in 2023 and 2024, but the measures did not get through the Senate. With the Legislature ending its third week of this year’s regular session, a Senate bill (SB 920) that would roll back the age limit has not been heard in committees. Asked about the issue Wednesday, Senate President Ben Albritton, R-Wauchula, tearfully recalled walking the halls of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and seeing damage from the mass shooting. But he also said he takes serious Second Amendment rights and is a lifetime National Rifle Association member. “I don’t have an answer for that right now,” Albritton said. “Like I do everything. I am thinking this through.”
Bah. Lifetime NRA member. So much for 2A rights. He should have been ejected from the NRA long ago if it was worth anything.
Next up, open carry.
Would be great to see it hit my desk — Florida needs to join the overwhelming majority of states and protect this right… https://t.co/IVB1lOwUEO
I don’t know if I believe that Florida Sheriffs support open carry, but the police sure don’t. They align with the controllers every time.
It’s a fight in Florida and has been for a very long time.
Ron Desantis could end it instantly and once and for all. He could refuse to sign another bill, including budget, until an open carry bill hits his desk for signature. He could do the same thing for age restrictions.
I guess it’s complicated, but according to Mike, it would be a good thing for suppressors to remain under consideration as firearms because then it warrants 2A protection.
I still want to see suppressors off the NFA. For hearing protection. For me. For the children.
It seemed inevitable that these decisions would build a consensus that the Supreme Court might embrace—until Friday, when a court broke from the pack in a surprise decision. By an 8–4 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit last week upheld Florida’s law prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from buying guns. Better yet, the court’s opinion was authored by Chief Judge William Pryor, a highly influential George W. Bush appointee. Pryor’s decision is doggedly originalist, a meticulous history lesson that proves the constitutionality of Florida’s ban beyond all reasonable doubt. It might just be persuasive enough to convince his ideological allies on the Supreme Court to uphold this lifesaving limit on the right to bear arms.
It is hard to overstate the significance of these words coming from the pen of a deeply conservative, dyed-in-the-wool Federalist Society stalwart like Pryor. He is arguably the most influential appeals court judge active today: Supreme Court justices regularly cite himby name, invoking his authority to bolster their own arguments—a rare honor reserved for marquee lower-court jurists.
To me, he’s a nobody. I couldn’t care less about him, nor do I play the same game as the “justices” on the supreme court.
I would have thought that Judge James Ho or Judge Don Willett would be much better buddies than Pryor.
The over-mountain men were pulling in crops and couldn’t go to meet the British forces. They sent their sons. The women lined the roads and sang hymns as they sent their sons off to battle. Their sons won. Thus ended the plans by Cornwallis to use loyalists to win the war.
The North Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee voted Tuesday to approve a bill allowing gun owners to carry concealed handguns without obtaining a permit, sending it to another panel.
Senate Bill 50, which bears the title “Freedom to Carry NC,” would authorize permitless concealed carry for individuals who are U.S. citizens, at least 18 years of age, and not otherwise prohibited by law, according to the bill’s text.
Its primary sponsors are Sens. Danny Britt (R-Hoke, Robeson, Scotland), Warren Daniel (R-Buncombe, Burke, McDowell), and Eddie Settle (R-Alexander, Surry, Wilkes, Yadkin). Britt and Daniel are two of the Judiciary Committee’s co-chairs.
Senate leader Phil Berger is backing the measure, he shared when sponsors filed it in February.
North Carolina law currently requires gun owners to obtain permits from their local sheriff’s office in order to carry a concealed handgun. Concealed carry also requires a minimum of eight hours of training.
“We believe that our constitution is clear that law abiding citizens should be allowed to constitutionally carry,” Britt said. “We believe they should be able to constitutionally carry without having to jump through the hoops that you do for a concealed carry permit.”
If passed into law, North Carolina would become the 30th state to allow what proponents call “constitutional carry” — meaning concealed carry without a permit. The legislation would still allow concealed carry permits to be issued “for the purpose of reciprocity when traveling in another state.”
This isn’t just smoke. While NC has an awful, terrible, no good, very bad governor, like we almost always do, the senate and house is controlled enough by conservatives that they can override a veto.
This is Tim Sundles, owner of Buffalo Bore Ammunition. As I’ve said before, I’ve never felt undergunned carrying a 1911 for dangerous game, but of course, I was carrying it outfitted with 450 SMC (Short Magnum Cartridge). I would also carry 45 Super since I believe the two are approximately the same. In fact, I’d carry .45 ACP+P as well.
But as always, the choice is up to you. I did find his personal example of use instructive.
GOA & GOF have been GAGGED from printing the news (uncovered in a FOIA) for 18 months.
Despite a recent ruling by the D.C. Circuit prohibiting such gag orders, Biden holdovers in @TheJusticeDept are asking the court to extend this First Amendment violation. pic.twitter.com/sp2FrKNmQo
BLUF. The ATF is illegally spying on gun owners and keeping a gun registry – but of course, you already knew that. GOA has the goods on them. In order to prevent folks from knowing, the FedGov shopped around for a corrupt judge (and of course found one) who gagged GOA from releasing the information.
Guess who is responsible for this? Our buddy, Stephen.
So you’ll have to watch the entire video in order to understand. I did, and I do. In fact, I knew where he was headed by half way through the video or even less.
BLUF. This either stops with the appeals court, in which case it may be cited in the future by other courts, or it may be ignored by other courts, or it goes to the supreme court for a final ruling in Range.
In order for it to go to the supreme court, the U.S. government must have an interest, i.e., have standing. In order to have standing, they must pursue the case as is.
Then it’s possible to switch their position during final submittals to the court. This is what Mark recommends. The whole thing is a bit twisted, but these are the rules.
So don’t be surprised when you see the U.S. appeal the Range decision to the supreme court rather than let it die at appeals court.
