When Reason Fails, Set Loose the Hysteria

Brett Kavanaugh Wants You to Bear His Assault Weapon - The Supreme Court nominee’s vision of guntopia. [More]

Perennial Bloomberg lickspittle Francis Wilkinson has a case of the vapors as his bunched panties cut off circulation.

Kavanaugh is too immersed in stare decisis to go full "shall not be infringed," and wouldn't have the juice to usher that in if he were not. What he will be is an improvement, and the gun-grabbers are having a true nature meltdown over that.

[Via Jess]

Stare Decisis

 Smallpox 'virus squads' and mandatory vaccinations upheld by the Supreme Court [More]

For some reason, my first thought is of all the "welfare checks" that end up with the citizen bleeding out...

Tangentially-Related UPDATE:

You want to be "free," don't you?

[Via Matthew L]

Air Head Judge Rules Air Gun a Weapon

An AirSoft gun might not be able to cause that much physical damage, but Judge John S. Kennedy determined Monday that the plastic BB-shooting guns, designed to be safer than traditional metal projectile BB and pellet guns, are capable of causing serious bodily injury - at least to the eye.

And for that, this evil tyrant sentenced the young man to "130 days to 23 months" of captivity, locking him in with brutal, vicious animals who will no doubt welcome the fresh, innocent young meat.

The bast*** had even "tabled an offered plea." Oh, but he relied on stare decisis, woudn't you know. Nothing we can do about that--our hands are tied.

This kid got railroaded by an absurd "law," a more absurd precedent, a "public defender", and a cowardly judicial tyrant.

It's nice if you have the faith to believe that some day, these black-robed Nazgûl will stand before another Judge, but it would also be nice to see them reap rewards for their tyranny in this life, and wind up in the same chains they worked their lives to help forge.

God, this has me mad.

"Not a Fundamental Right"

Christopher Boldt, an attorney for the city of Dover, said Bleiler's right to bear arms was not infringed when he lost his concealed-carry license, since it did not affect his ability to carry a gun in plain view. He also said that the Legislature has the authority to require permits for concealed weapons.

"The right to a concealed handgun is not a fundamental right," Boldt told the justices.

Sure it is, Chris. Keeping and bearing "shall not be infringed." Seems pretty clear to anyone who's not a subversive liar. There are no restrictions on how you do it--no morally legitimate ones, anyway.

But now, thanks to this guy Bleiler reportedly acting like an ass, we'll probably get to see yet another inroad in denying "permitted" carrying codified and chiseled into stare decisis stone.

Two More to Go

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions [More]

So stare decisis über alles may not be what the Founders intended, particularly when it comes to the Bill of Rights?

What ARE the Powers of a Sheriff vs the Feds?

I've read elsewhere, and even heard it suggested in comments here at WarOnGuns, that the sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in his county--and that federal agents may not conduct investigations without his cognizance. One of the reasons generally given is that because he is elected, he represents the highest actual authority--the people.

Generally cited to back up these claims is the case of Castaneda v US. The story goes something like INS targeted a family in Wyoming with an Hispanic surname as illegal aliens and recruited the local sheriff to assist in the bust. It turns out they were citizens, and in the resulting legal settlement, the ruling was made acknowledging the doctrine of "Sheriff Supremacy."

Thing is, I can find no such ruling from any court. I found sites that say there was a private and undisclosed settlement, and even sites that quote the court as saying this, and one (but not an "official" one) with a docket showing the case was dismissed. I found sites that say precedent was established and sheriffs can now wield this power if they only knew--if they only would. I found sites claiming the whole thing is a hoax. And a general conclusion among the "naysayers" is that any sheriff who tried to interfere with a federal investigation would soon find himself behind bars and facing charges.

This latter part is believable, regardless of any purported stare decisis, only because my experience has been that the largest, most vicious gang controls the turf. And my sense is that such a doctrine would run afoul of the Constitution being "the supreme law of the land"--and as doors swing both ways, it could allow sheriffs to enforce all kinds of infringements on civil liberties.

My point in all this being, I was going to write an open letter to the sheriff in Twin Falls about the persecution of Red's Trading Post, with the assumption that he has some sort of say in what goes down in his county. But when I started doing my basic fact-checking, I quickly realized I could not back that assumption up.

Feel free to chime in with comments and educate me. I'm not trying to slam the door shut on this. But this is a legal area where I freely admit ignorance, and I need more than unsubstantiated opinions and wishful thinking.

Wayne Fincher Update: February 8

Per Paul W. Davis, the docket for USA v. Hollis Wayne Fincher has been updated with the Response to Motion for Arrest of Judgment.

I see our wonderful "Department of Justice" is arguing that in camera betrayals and side bar savaging are all the due process one needs to afford the mere peasantry. After all, the relevant statutes "are within the authority granted to Congress under the Constitution," as long as we forget that inconvenient bit about "shall not be infringed," and previous stare decisis power grabs give the whole foul process a surface mask of legality.

[More about Wayne Fincher via WarOnGuns]

"Vote Freedom First" President Speaks FOR "the Record"

Quick read: Gov't says, yes, it's an individual right. BUT we join with DC in asking Court to reverse the DC Circuit, because it applied strict scrutiny to the DC law. It should only have applied an intermediate standard. That is, the legal position of the US is that DC Circuit was wrong, a complete ban on handguns is NOT per se unconstitutional, it all depends on how good a reason DC can prove for it.

And this is filed in the name of the Solicitor General. [More]

The brief is here.

I trust no one is surprised by this fraudulent neocon pawn in the White House? You shouldn't be. They made their position crystal clear back when then-Solicitor General Ted Olson submitted briefs arguing that "the Second Amendment [is] subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

And naturally, government--the body the Second Amendment was intended as a people's check and balance against--is the arbiter of who and what. We've just seen the path for half of the pincer cleared--this is the other. They've been telegraphing their moves while we squabble over arcane details.

Anyone surprised by this latest rape attempt hasn't been paying attention. Republican Kool-Aid (who else you gonna vote for?) has a tendency to blur the vision and hearing. Mix that with a preponderance of denial and just about any sleight of law is possible.

Think about the language: "types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." That was what they said back when they asked the court not to hear Emerson. Here's what they say now:

Congress has enacted numerous laws regulating firearms. Those statutes include restrictions on private possession of types of firearms that are particularly susceptible to criminal misuse. The United States has a substantial interest in the constitutionality and effective implementation of those laws.

At least they're consistent.

Tell me--with a straight face--that can't--and won't--be interpreted to mean any type of firearm, depending on what a particular jurisdiction thinks it can get away with, and that stare decisis won't then be used to bind communities where such sentiment does not prevail. That's what the federal courts do.

I see people already commenting that this or that Republican presidential candidate would not allow this on his watch. I hope they're right, but now it's time to find out. Anyone with contacts in any of the campaigns, let's make a concerted effort to see which one(s) will issue a clear, immediate and unequivocal denunciation of this latest treacherous act of sabotage--and pledge to not only rein in the "Justice" Department, but to start the process to repeal the very laws we have to march through bloody hell to take to court--only to have the doors slammed in our faces when we get there.

UPDATE: Uh-oh. I'm in trouble now...

And How Do We Keep Our Balance? That I Can Tell You in One Word.

TRADITION! [More]

It's kind of like stare decisis for legislators -- it gives them cover to get away with all kinds of usurpations and betrayals from originalist principles.

I feel a song coming on...

Just so we all know our place.

[Via Mack H]

Search Me...

The text of the Fourth Amendment, after all, prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” (emphasis added), and here there is necessarily “reasonable suspicion” for a Terry stop to be lawful. [More]

Cherry-picking, are we? The text of the Fourth Amendment also says "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

But hey, a majority of robed oath-breakers say it's precedent, and after all, we do live in the land of stare decisis über alles.

Could it be that ignoring the Constitution has resulted in the very types of people Mr. Adams warned us about? And the "solution" is ignoring the Constitution even more?

"Rudy did it first" is hardly justification. If Rudy jumped off a bridge, would Josh follow? Rudy has done a lot of stupid sh!+.

My Mom never accepted that excuse from me when I was a kid trying to mitigate my guilt by blaming the influence of a pal, and it's disturbing to see a lawyer and an influencer of young minds using it to defend infringements.

So Mr. Sickl... I mean, Hammer is a "conservative"...?

[Via Mack H]

Judging Amy

 I received an email asking me about the RKBA positions of the women candidates for the Supreme Court. Here's my response:

With Trump's announcement, Barett is the candidate, singular...

I touched on what had been the two frontrunners in my latest Firearms News piece:

Of the two, Barrett has been pilloried by the unctuously “progressive” Slate as having a “fundamentally cruel vision of the law,” warning readers “there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country.”

That said, Slate would object to anyone not fully on board with the gun grab agenda. 

Here are the GOA and NRA assessments.

None of this means she will be strong on "shall not be infringed" for everything that comes her way or have the same level of determination and understanding as informed gun advocates, and you can't rise to that level in the courts without being committed to stare decisis precedents. I doubt if she'll be sympathetic to core purpose militia arguments and expect she will make some statements in confirmation hearings that many will object to. 

I've also got concerns about her predispositions on "immigration," considering the Catholic Church is big on "refugee resettlement," her personal stake in that with the adopted Haitian children, and the legislative and judicial impacts we know that has on RKBA.

Bottom line: I expect we'll find out the specifics on all of this after she's been seated.

Unpublished Opinions

But the justice was not impressed; he was instead, appalled. He noticed that a good number of the decisions I pulled up with my searching were unpublished...

We ran into that here, and a number of you weighed in with comments.

I'm just an ignorant non-lawyer, but it seems to me this is yet another way to deprive us of our rights. Face it--the courts don't rule us by the Constitution, hell, they don't even let you mention it--they rely on stare decisis, whether the earlier decisions were transparently tyrannical BS or not. So then they reach an opinion but don't want others to know about it for their defense? Is that what's going on?

Somehow, I don't think things should be this convoluted. But what do I know?

Apparently not that much, because I actually viewed the Kwan development as news that should interest the gun community. I scanned the Internet before I posted, looking to see if anyone else had weighed in on it so I could learn more, and there was nothing. So I sent my link to several prominent legal bloggers as well as conservative news sites and...well, you tell me...

It's not like the feds didn't do their utmost to put this guy down. I guess their being set back in court just doesn't merit notice...*

[Via lawhobbit]

* One notable exception

The Haunted Forest

Here are six stories of people who went into one of America’s 59 national parks — and never returned. [More]

Remember when Clinton appointee Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled in favor of the Bradys, presuming authority to deny our right to possess the means of defense until an "environmental impact study" had been performed to say it was OK?

They would literally rather see you dead than armed. Besides, you might miss your maniac attacker and hit a spotted owl.

Funny-- since her ruling was never overturned by a higher court (a Congressional rider on a credit card bill allowed it instead), stare decisis ought to still apply over executive actions in her district.  Anybody know if environmental impact studies have been done on the administration bypassing all those lawfully-enacted immigration laws?

A Clear Command

Simply put, unless historical evidence clearly commands otherwise, courts claiming fidelity to originalist values ought to defer to democratically enacted public-carry policies. [More]

Simply put, as documented by the historical evidence, there is no more clear command for originalist fidelity than "shall not be infringed."

Stare decisis weenies perpetuating corrupt deviations won't stop unless they learn that the hard way.

[Via Michael G]

So Much for Precedent

One way to slow down and reverse the proliferation of guns in Connecticut would be to give gun violence victims the right to sue gun manufacturers for the damage caused by their products. [More]

The antis will never accept that they lost this one, just like they will never accept an individual right or incorporation to the states or...

It figures, the same ones who rely on stare decisis over original intent throw precedent over the railing when it suits their purposes.

They're the same ones who bellow about "home rule" when lifted restrictions apply to all, but then turn around and demand federal edicts for all.

That's because they are evil manipulators and liars who will do whatever it takes to gain total control. 

That's because they are the enemy.

Scrutiny Mutiny

The Roberts Court would have few accomplishments of greater significance than the repudiation of the tiers of scrutiny and the reassertion of a method of constitutional analysis based on the text, history, and tradition of the Constitution. [More]

Which means he'll make sure it falls back on the most wrong-headed stare decisis abomination he can dig up to reaffirm and fortify it.

Because Dolly.

I look forward to apologizing to him.

[Via Mack H]

We're the Only Ones Getting Our Butts Kicked Enough

John Coffin won't spend any more time in jail for beating up two sheriff's deputies inside his house, striking one in the head with a Taser gun he took from the other...

But Coffin, 56, had a right to defend his family and property because the deputies had no right to be in Coffin's house in the first place...

This is the kind of stare decisis I culd live with.

[Via Vinnie]

[More from "The Only Ones" files...]

Environmentalcase Hypocrisy

Environmentalists say wall plan poses threat to Arizona wildlife, waterways [More]

And this does not?

Remember when Clinton appointee Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled in favor of the Bradys, presuming authority to deny our right to possess the means of defense until an "environmental impact study" had been performed to say it was OK?

Funny-- since her ruling was never overturned by a higher court (a Congressional rider on a credit card bill allowed it instead), stare decisis ought to still apply over executive actions in her district.  Anybody know if environmental impact studies have been done on the deliberate bypassing of all those lawfully-enacted immigration laws? What about a precedent-based lawsuit?

And it's not just desert trash, that just provides for a telling visual but it's a small part of the overall impact. More energy needs to be generated, more infrastructure is needed, more cars are on the road "thanks" to driver's licenses for illegals, more trash and sewage is generated everywhere they go...

Democrats care as much about the environment as they do about racism-- what they care about is if they can exploit an issue to seize more power.

[Via Wynn A] 

Rise of the Machines

So when these become "in common use at the time" -- and they will, lest "our side" sits by and allows a "terminator gap" --  will they be made available to "We the People"? [More]

Oh, that's right -- stare decisis always trumps founding intent.

[Via Neil W]

We're the Only Ones Stopping and Frisky Enough

The New York Police Department released new information yesterday showing that police officers stopped 508,540 individuals on New York City streets last year — an average of 1,393 stops per day — often searching them for illegal weapons. The number was up from 97,296 in 2002, the last time the department divulged 12 months’ worth of data.

Let's just put this in perspective:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But I'm sure this plenty of stare decisis to back up "The Only Ones" on this, and a defendant or his attorney would be charged with contempt of court if they attempted to taint the jury's opinions with something as subversive as the Bill of Rights...

And just remember: Our enemies hate us because we're free!