Alan Dershowitz illustrates my concern about the Texas abortion legislation being used as precedent for other issues, in Democratic monopoly states:
Consider this out-of-the-box proposal: Liberal, pro-gun-control states could apply the Texas bounty approach to gun control. New York or Illinois, for example, could declare that gun crime has gotten so serious that the private ownership of most handguns should be deterred. It would be unconstitutional for the state to authorize the criminal prosecution of those who facilitate constitutionally protected gun ownership. But the state could, instead, enact a gun-bounty civil law modeled on the Texas abortion law. It would empower any citizen to sue for $10,000 anyone who facilitates the sale or ownership of handguns.
Gun-ownership advocates would rail against such a law as circumventing Heller, just as abortion advocates are railing against the Texas law as circumventing Roe. But it would be hard for the courts to uphold the civil mechanism of the anti-abortion law without also upholding the identical mechanism in the anti-gun law.
Creating this “shoe on the other foot” challenge would bring home the dangerous implications of the Texas bounty approach which, if not stopped, could undercut the authority of the Supreme Court to enforce other constitutional rights.
Texas could, for example, next apply it to gay marriage — any private citizen could sue anyone who performed or facilitated same-sex marriages — thus circumventing Obergefell v. Hodges. New York could then apply it to Citizens United v. FCC and offer a civil bounty to sue any media outlet that ran corporate political ads. Any state could simply target any Supreme Court precedent it doesn’t like and deter its enforcement by authorizing citizens who oppose it to sue. This would empower every state to effectively overrule Supreme Court decisions, as some southern states unsuccessfully tried to do following Brown v Board of Education in 1954.
Earlier this year, the anti-Civil Rights group “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” issued a press release in support of Terry McAuliffe’s run [again] for Governor of my adopted state of Virginia.
In this now deleted release [the internet is forever geniuses], they rail against the GOP challenger [who doesn’t really seem to stand for anything, based on his TV ads] by stating:
“His willingness to say anything for a vote is deeply troubling, as we’ve already seen him cozying up to those with deep ties to those at the forefront of the insurrectionist movement, like Senator Amanda Chase and the domestic terror organization, the Virginia Citizens Defense League.”
As a member in good standing of said Virginia Citizen’s Defense League, apparently that makes me a domestic terrorist. Knowing the source, I guess I’ll wear that label with some amount of pride.
Honestly, I’m more upset at being implicated in the same sentence as batshit crazy Amanda Chase.
“I’m going in there with 20 strong men, I’m going to speak to the school board and I’m going to give them an option. They can leave or they can be removed ” said Steve Lynch who is running for PA Governor, “Make men men again”, he said during Freedom Rally today.
At protest in Santa Monica today before the vote on mask-mandate, Jason Lefkowitz has the home addresses of each LA City Council member on his sign. He says they are going to the homes of whoever votes for it, and if it passes, it’s “civil war, get your guns.” From @chadloder
Soon is coming the time for patriots to grab muskets from over the mantle, secure shot and ball, and prepare to defend our nation from the Cult of the Unmitigated Asshole. Those self-aggrandized snowflakes who allow their impotent rage to convince them that they’re victims because of <insert baseless reason here>.
A reckoning is indeed coming, but they mistakenly reckon that the cause of Patriots is on their side.
So, Biden hypes a ‘massive’ effort to curb violent crime and crime involving firearms yesterday. After careful review of his statements….they can be summed up as…….actually enforcing existing gun laws. A position that the political Right has long advocated for. My, what courage……
Now, being the uncompliant and obstinate Libertarian that I am, I believe that nearly every firearm prohibition should be removed, beginning with the abysmal NFA.
P.S. – In another ironic tidbit….many GOP elected representatives – after having voted against a commission to illuminate the events behind the Jan 6th insurrection – are now calling for that very event, having bought into the specious allegation that the FBI coordinated and enabled the event; which was carried out by Trump cultists.
Of course, this position against an unconstitutional agency notwithstanding, she’s still a perfidious piece of shit cultist. And the bill will go absolutely nowhere, but good on her for trying anyway. This bill wouldn’t have passed when the last Administration held the White House and both houses of Congress…….
I’m undoubtedly going to have some severe disagreements with the next presumptive SCOTUS Justice [though I’m certain the Mark Levins of the sock-puppet demographic will not refer to her as a “black-robed tyrant”], but at least Amy Comey Barrett seems to have a liberty-minded view of the 2nd Amendment [let’s hope likewise for the rest of the Bill of Rights].
In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to own guns for self-defense. At the same time, the majority opinion mentioned some “presumptively lawful regulatory measures,” including “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” But both Barrett and her two colleagues on a 7th Circuit panel, who upheld the federal and Wisconsin bans that Kanter challenged, agreed that Heller did not settle the question of whether the Second Amendment allows the government to disarm someone like him.
“The constitutionality of felon dispossession was not before the Court in Heller, and because it explicitly deferred analysis of this issue, the scope of its assertion is unclear,” Barrett wrote. “For example, does ‘presumptively lawful’ mean that such regulations are presumed lawful unless a historical study shows otherwise? Does it mean that as-applied challenges are available? Does the Court’s reference to ‘felons’ suggest that the legislature cannot disqualify misdemeanants from possessing guns? Does the word ‘longstanding’ mean that prohibitions of recent vintage are suspect?”
In addressing a question that she and the majority agreed Heller left unresolved, Barrett considered English common law, proposed and ratified provisions of state constitutions in the U.S., and firearm restrictions enacted in the 18th and 19th centuries. Her conclusion:
History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward—legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.
That rationale does not easily fit laws that take away the Second Amendment rights of anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony (or, under federal law, “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” which is similar but not quite the same thing), no matter how long ago the offense occurred and whether or not it involved violence or even an identifiable victim. While Kanter ripped off Medicare (and therefore taxpayers), the government presented no evidence that his particular crime or any other personal characteristics showed he had violent tendencies that posed a threat to public safety.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”
“…to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Founding Father, George Mason
On April 18, 1775, British regulars marched for Lexington and Concord under specific orders to seize and destroy all arms and munitions believed to be hidden in the two towns. These firearms were lawfully owned by the colonists. The first battle of the Revolution was fought over gun control. That is why we have the 2nd Amendment.
A government “mandatory buyback” of semiautomatic rifles is just gun confiscation put in polite terms.
Kamala Harris is an outspoken supporter of disarming the American people.
When scrolling on through Promises Kept, you’ll find numerous subjects ranging from border security to economic growth. You’ll see listed accomplishments for national security and regulation, immigration and foreign policy. What you won’t find is any mention of President Trump’s success in fighting for the Second Amendment. There isn’t a single mention of gun rights on the page, and that’s kind of indicative of how the topic has been viewed by the administration. This administration, while not actively suppressing gun rights, has done nothing to improve the status of the Second Amendment, filing it down, essentially to a non-issue.
The President has also done nothing to liberate the 2nd amendment. There is, or at least there should be, a reasonable expectation that a conservative president will not only stop further gun regulation but also work to pullback on some of the Unconstitutional regulations on firearms ownership from administrations of the past. It has been a Libertarian and Conservative policy that every citizen has the right to own any weapon they wish, as long as they aren’tt a criminal or an idiot. Yet, no substantial attempts have been made to repeal the machine gun ban or allow non-violent offenders to purchase and own firearms.