TriggerFinger


NRA declines to file amicus brief in 2nd Amendment case

NRA In DangerJust in — a Second Amendment attorney informs us that, in the upcoming Supreme Court case involving New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, challenging the New York “Sullivan Law,” and accepted by the Court, the NRA does not plan to file a “friend of the court” brief. It will be the first Second Amendment case since McDonald, eleven years ago, and all the pro-gun groups will be filing briefs. Second Amendment Foundation will be filing one through Chuck Cooper, the former Assistant Attorney General who was NRA’s Supreme Court attorney for decades, until he was purged for supporting resignation of Wayne LaPierre.

The Association has tens of millions to spend on legal fees, to keep a dozen or so lawsuits going, to file bankruptcy and fail, to sue NY and fail, but no money to defend the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court. Suppose it’s just a matter of priorities.

The NRA's failure to put legal pressure behind 2nd Amendment court cases has long been a reason for gun owners to support other groups that do apply that pressure. I've supported the 2nd Amendment Foundation for that purpose. Even the major gun cases early in this century, particularly Parker v DC which became the Heller case, did not have support from the NRA initially. The NRA had to seek to intervene in the case later.

The current NRA is clearly not doing it's job.

Wed Jul 07 22:57:35 CDT 2021 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

CA's handgun "safety" list violates 2nd Amendment

Second Amendment FoundationThe Second Amendment Foundation is applauding a ruling by a federal judge in Southern California that a provision in the state’s new handgun roster law, requiring the removal of three handguns already on the roster that can be sold, to make room for each new handgun added to the list may violate the Second Amendment.

The ruling by U.S. District Chief Judge Dana Sabraw, is a slap at California’s law, which took effect Jan. 1 of this year. The lawsuit was brought by SAF, the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Firearms Policy Coalition and a private citizen, Lana Rae Renna, for whom the case Renna v. Becerra is named. They sued California in November. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Raymond DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C. and Michael Sousa of San Diego.

In his 15-page ruling, Judge Sabraw, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that plaintiffs “have sufficiently pled the UHA (“Unsafe Handgun Act”) substantially impacts their Second Amendment rights and thus burdens conduct protected by the Amendment.”

It feels like the Supremes finally taking a gun case has opened the floodgates.

And obviously this is unconstitutional. If you have to remove three guns on the list in order to add one, eventually your list will have just one or two guns on it and no other models -- ever -- will be allowed.

Fri May 07 23:07:30 CDT 2021 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Court strikes down Illinois FOID requirement

Second Amendment FoundationAn Illinois Circuit Court Judge in White County has ruled the requirement for possessing a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card to possess a gun in the home is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The case is known as Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown. Her case is supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association. According to Brown’s attorney, David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., this is the second time a judge has declared the FOID Card Act unconstitutional, dismissing the charges against Brown, who had a bolt-action rifle in her home, but did not possess an FOID card.

This is a small but significant step forward, as the FOID card itself represents an effective state level registration list of who owns a gun even if it does not map individuals to specific firearms. The card itself also represents a prior permission requirement.

Mon May 03 22:20:26 CDT 2021 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Supreme Court agrees to take up major Second Amendment case

Just The NewsThe Supreme Court said Monday that next term it will consider a Second Amendment case concerning a New York law that restricts a person from carrying a concealed handgun in public, marking roughly a decade since justices have ruled on a significant case about gun rights.

Josh Blackman reads the tea leaves, and David Hardy has some possible ideas.

My take is that the court wants to strike down may-issue concealed carry licensing, while leaving shall-issue licensing in place. They may even want to be specific about what may issue regimes are allowed.

This will be the first 2nd Amendment case the Supreme Court has taken up in some time, and how the justices vote will be closely scrutinized.

Sun May 02 22:27:32 CDT 2021 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Democrats plan to pack the court, add 4 seats

Gateway Pundit“The bill would add four seats to the high court, bringing the total to 13, from the current 9. The number of justices on the Court has fluctuated widely throughout the course of the nation’s history. Republicans currently hold 6 seats, while Democrats hold just 3 after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the quick confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.” The Intercept reported.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, Subcommittee chair Hank Johnson, and Rep. Mondaire Jones are leading the charge in the House and it’s being backed by Ed Markey (MA) in the Senate.

Not even FDR managed to pack the court, though he tried -- and arguably the threat of doing so caused the court to stop striking down his programs, so FDR got what he wanted. Democrats seek to recreate the same dynamic by threatening to pack the court with four (!!) more justices despite holding only very narrow majorities in the House and technically no majority at all in the Senate (Kamala Harris' tie breaking vote in the only thing giving them primacy there).

Whether by packing the court directly or by threat of doing so, the Democrats plan to neutralize the potentially significant 6-3 advantage Republicans now hold on the court.

Unfortunately, Roberts has already all but switched sides, making the practical majority 5-4. And even that majority was insufficient to decide the electoral fraud cases in 2020. If the Democrats do succeed in packing the court, they will hold an 8-5 majority. And their justices vote in lockstep when required.

Passage of this legislation would be a disaster with generational consequences.

Pelosi claims she has no intention of bringing the legislation to the floor of the House for a vote. That just reinforces the idea that the legislation is intended as a threat. It will remain there, without a vote, so long as the court behaves the way Pelosi wants them to.

A Republican proposal suggests a Constitutional Amendment to set the court size. It won't pass now, but it might later.

Categories Supreme Court

Sun Apr 25 22:44:28 CDT 2021 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Biden Admin threatens to pack the Supreme Court

Legal InsurrectionBiden Appoints Court-Packing Commission – Puts Conservative Supreme Court Justices In His Sights

Chuck Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, and other Democrats have been threatening the high court for years, this Commission is laying the foundation.

Not even FDR could manage that, but Biden is hoping that the threat will result in favorable rulings. And that could work.

Even just the attempt should clue Americans into exactly how tyrannical Biden is preparing to get.

Categories Supreme Court

Sat Apr 17 23:50:54 CDT 2021 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Clarence Thomas outlines the path back to free speech

Gateway Pundit“Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties,” Thomas wrote. “We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

Justice Thomas noted that Trump had 89 million followers when he was banned in January, and said that the owners of the platforms have too much power.

“Although both companies are public, one person controls Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg), and just two control Google (Larry Page and Sergey Brin),” Thomas wrote.

Politico reports that “Thomas’ opinion amounts to an invitation to Congress to declare Twitter, Facebook and similar companies ‘common carriers,’ essentially requiring them to host all customers regardless of their views. At the moment, the companies have sweeping authority to take down any post and to suspend or terminate any account.”

Justice Thomas sees clearly.

How many other justices share that vision?

Mon Apr 12 22:53:39 CDT 2021 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

9th Circuit rules concealed carry not protected by 2nd Amendment

Gun Free ZoneOf course the 9th Circuit Court, aka the 9th Circus voted against concealed carry.

Here’s the problem, the 7th Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in Moore v. Madigan.

We have two Circuit Court decisions in conflict.

I think SCOTUS might have to get involved in this.

It seems likely we're going to have to find out how far we can trust Trump's justices on gun rights. Like the original poster, I don't trust Roberts. That puts us at 5-4... if no one else defects.

Thu Apr 01 23:34:31 CDT 2021 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Supreme Court rejects last election challenges without comment

Gateway PunditThe US Supreme Court dismissed President Trump’s final election challenge on Monday without comment.

What a dark day for America.
Democrats are now allowed to make any changes to election law whenever they feel necessary without consequence.

The Supreme Court also threw out Attorney Lin Wood’s election challenge without comment.

Gateway Pundit's take is a little pessimistic, but only a little. The court refusing without comment (denial of certiori) doesn't set legal precedent, so in theory the same issues could come up again and be taken up by the court at a later date.

In practice, the Roberts court blinked and until the court slate changes for the better, we're not likely to see any improvement.

Thu Mar 11 21:47:50 CST 2021 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Supreme Court considering election cases

Washington ExaminerThe Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.

The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.

The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.

I fear the outcome in these cases is now preordained. Had these cases been decided before the election, their decisions could be made honestly. Now? If the court rules that Biden's wins in several of the states was actually illegitimate... how do you uninstall a president who is occupying the White House?

You don't, absent impeachment, which will not happen due to Democratic control of both houses of Congress (or the 25th Amendment, which doesn't apply here). But if the Supreme Court rules honestly that the rules were illegally changed and the election was invalid, it will tear apart the country and likely spark civil war.

The only justice I trust to have that level of fuck-you is Clarence Thomas. The others are unknown quantities or known squishes.

The court has destroyed its own credibility.

Mon Feb 22 04:25:11 CST 2021 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Supremes take a gun case?

Of Arms and the LawCaniglia v. Strom, docket here. Police, summoned after a non-violent domestic argument, searched the house without a warrant and seized two legally-owned handguns, then refused to return them. The question is whether the "community care taking" exception to the warrant and probable cause requirement extends to the home. There's a big split in the Circuits, and the Court granted cert.

It seems to be moving quickly: respondents' briefs are not due until Feb. 11, but argument is set for March 24.

Looks like we'll find out of the court has found the stomach to stand up for gun rights. From the description, this case should really be a slam dunk. No violence, no crime, unwarranted search of a home, confiscation of property that was never returned. If "but it was a gun!" can legally justify all that, the Constitution is a dead letter.

Mon Feb 08 22:47:47 CST 2021 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

CJ Roberts allows ballots without postmarks to be counted after election

4-4 split leaves absurd lower court decision in place. We need Amy on the court to resolve these decisions without absurd ties. And we need Roberts to wake the fuck up and do his job, or else resign and publicly admit that the left has been blackmailing him. Seriously. In what sane universe do you count votes without postmarks that were received after the election? That is an invitation to fraud. And if those ballots decide the presidency... well, that's a nightmare scenario we don't need.

Categories Supreme Court

Wed Oct 28 12:15:36 CDT 2020 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Biden would have voted against 2nd Amendment individual right

Biden stated recently he would have voted against the landmark DC v Heller case, which firmly established the 2nd Amendment as an individual rather than a collective right to arms. Presumably he would appoint Supreme Court judges who would vote similarly, which is probably why Biden refuses to release list of Supreme Court judges.

This is hardly a surprise. Biden has signaled his opposition to gun rights by such things as hiring "Beto" as his gun control czar. But it's nice to have him on the record as opposing the Bill of Rights.

Sat Oct 03 01:07:39 CDT 2020 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

A recess appointment to the Supreme Court?

Assuming the Senate actually goes into recess, this seems like a good idea. We really do not want a Supreme Court tied 4-4 during election season. It does open things up to some legal risks; recess appointments have been challenged on various grounds and Congress has been less than willing to admit it is in recess in recent years, precisely to block such appointments. It would also risk reducing the urgency of a permanent confirmation vote.

But the payoff of a full court that can resolve election issues decisively may spare us from a terrible drawn-out election season of rioting and endlessly "discovered" ballots.

If the Senate does not promptly confirm Trump's nominee permanently, Trump should make the recess appointment so the court can function in the meantime.

Sun Sep 27 02:28:25 CDT 2020 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Justice Ginsburg is dead; long live Trump's Justice

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died of complications from cancer. I disagreed with her on many things, but I won't celebrate her death.

However, with only a few weeks to go before the election, the left will see the chance of losing control of the Supreme Court for real. (Despite the supposedly conservative majority, enough Justices go wobbly that the left has had significant influence on cases that matter to them). They will go absolutely crazy to prevent Trump from successfully nominating and confirming a replacement. And if they manage to block a confirmation before the election, the election itself will have massively increased levels of violence, fraud, riots, and everything else. The left will see this election as being for all the marbles. The right, among which I count myself, will see a chance to make lasting gains on goals long denied.

This election was already tense, with figures on the left openly threatening succession and civil war if they lose. This will only increase the tensions. Civil war is now a real possibility.

Categories Supreme Court

Fri Sep 18 20:12:11 CDT 2020 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Ginsburg has cancer, again, still

She's been having chemotherapy since May.

Categories Supreme Court

Sat Jul 18 01:22:13 CDT 2020 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Retired Justice Stevens suggests Supreme Court may advance gun rights

Think ProgressAccording to Liptak, Stevens “helped persuade Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in the majority, to ask for ‘some important changes’ to Justice Scalia’s opinion.”

The result was a passage providing that Heller should not “be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

First the factual aspect. Assuming it's accurate, it confirms something the gun rights community has long suspected. (I don't particularly doubt the accuracy of the claim, although Stevens may be overstating his own role as as persuasive force...)

Think ProgressThe upshot of Stevens’ highly unusual revelation — justices, even retired justices, rarely disclose internal Court deliberations — is that there are probably no longer five votes on the Supreme Court who support this language in Heller. A wide range of firearm restrictions intended to keep firearms out of the hands of especially dangerous individuals or to keep them out of “sensitive places such as schools” could soon fall.

Now the facts.

We don't know where the current court sits on gun rights. Roberts has demonstrated squishy behavior before. Kennedy was replaced with Kavanaugh, presumably a solid 2nd Amendment vote, but Trump's first pick Gorsuch replaced Scalia (solid pro-gun vote) with a presumably solid pro-gun vote. Neither Kavanaugh nor Gorsuch have really been tested yet and Roberts is untrustworthy. We're probably better off with Kennedy replaced. But we need to win one more to feel secure, and even then, we can't count on the new Justices until we see how they vote.

Since Stevens is clearly trying to stoke panic here, let me rebut.

Gun free zone laws around schools have stopped precisely zero school shootings. As with other places declared gun free, criminals view them as soft targets. The only people deterred from carrying in such zones are the honest, law-abiding people who you would want to have a gun in case of such an attack.

"Laws intended to keep firearms out of the hands of especially dangerous individuals" has a couple possible meanings. Do they mean felons? Most felons will be able to get a gun as easily as they can get drugs, ie, illegally. Challenges to the core of felon-in-possession laws seem unlikely in the near future, though we will likely see nibbles around the edges for people acting in self-defense, whose crimes were not violent in nature, and who have been rehabilitated into society. Do they mean people like the Parkland shooter, who should have been on the naughty list but was not due to law enforcement failures? Law enforcement will have failures no matter what laws you pass. Do they mean people like the man who died at the hands of police in Maryland recently? How many innocent people need to die because one of their in-laws didn't like them owning a gun?

Thu Nov 29 07:47:19 CST 2018 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Trump nominates Kavanaugh

Sebastian quoting KavanaughIn my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns – the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic – are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi- automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi- automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned afterHeller.)1

Aside from the bit of dicta about machine guns, which is probably an unfortunate necessity at this point, that's a fairly solid position. We still don't know who was the weak point on the court preventing 2nd Amendment cases from being heard and decided properly, but if it was Kennedy, his replacement will be a positive change. We can't be certain of forward progress until at least one of the remaining left-wing judges is replaced.

I don't claim to have looked into this set of nominees closely, simply for lack of time and interest. Some think Hardiman or Kethledge would have been better on the 2nd. That may be true. But I think Kavanaugh will be willing to advance the court's jurisprudence in this issue in the right direction, and that's enough.

Categories Supreme Court

Tue Jul 10 10:50:17 CDT 2018 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]

Justice Kennedy announces retirement

Power Line has the details, along with inappropriate snark about him being the Chief Justice. He's not. Roberts is. The retirement is effective July 31st, meaning we have a month or so to argue about who replaces him. Some on the left are already screaming about Gorsuch, but holding an open seat on the Supreme Court for more than two years and then hoping to win the election may be a bridge too far. I expect the Democrats will try to hold past the midterms in the hopes of getting the Senate majority, which would allow them to completely block a replacement justice and force Trump to bargain with his nominee.

Whether McConnell will allow them to do that is another matter.

The Democrats are already going nuts, with mob violence and stalking of administration officials, pervasive threats from deranged individuals, and even occasional acts of politically motivated violence. This will only raise the stakes. They are going to go batshit crazy.

Categories Supreme Court

Wed Jun 27 14:05:13 CDT 2018 by TriggerFinger. Comments [Tweet]


Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.


This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.